Nathaniel Jones III v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 31, 2024
• Docket: 12-24-00093-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 12-24-00093-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

NATHANIEL JONES III, § APPEAL FROM THE 3RD APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant, Nathaniel Jones, III, filed a pro se notice of appeal on April 22, 2024. That same day, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the notice of appeal failed to contain the information specifically required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(e). 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 (requiring service on parties); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(e) (service of notice of appeal). The notice warned that, unless Appellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or before May 2, the appeal would be referred to the Court for dismissal. This deadline passed and Appellant has not filed a compliant notice of appeal or otherwise responded to this Court’s notice. 2

1 Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties represented by counsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2 It appears that Appellant filed another notice of appeal, which likewise fails to comply with appellate

Rules 9.5 and 21.5(e). Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rules 9.5 and 25.1(e), the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal is subject to dismissal because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time).

Opinion delivered May 31, 2024. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

2 COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 31, 2024

NATHANIEL JONES III, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 3rd District Court of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DCCV21-2390-3)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court 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; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.