Michael Kennedy v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 23, 2014
• Docket: 12-14-00067-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 12-14-00067-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL KENNEDY, § APPEAL FROM THE 87TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On March 19, 2014, Appellant Michael Kennedy filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of his civil rights action. However, the trial court clerk notified this court that no final judgment has been signed. Therefore, this court notified Appellant, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.2, that the information received in this appeal does not contain a final judgment or other appealable order. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be dismissed if the information received in the appeal was not amended on or before April 21, 2014, to show the jurisdiction of this court. The deadline for amendment has passed, and Appellant has neither responded to the court’s March 19, 2014 notice or otherwise shown the jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2, 42.3. Opinion delivered April 23, 2014. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 23, 2014

MICHAEL KENNEDY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 87th District Court of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 87-11917)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.