Richard Harold Vollick, Jr. v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Richard Harold Vollick, Jr. v. State

DecidedApril 1, 2004

Docket13-03-00572-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Richard Harold Vollick, Jr. v. State (Richard Harold Vollick, Jr. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Harold Vollick, Jr. v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-03-572-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________

RICHARD HAROLD VOLLICK, JR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Nueces County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, RICHARD HAROLD VOLLICK, JR., attempts to appeal a conviction for driving while intoxicated. The trial court has certified that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On January 12, 2004, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification.

On February 16, 2004, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel’s response fails to establish either that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); see Tex. R. App. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 1st day of April, 2004.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NUMBER 13-03-572-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________

RICHARD HAROLD VOLLICK, JR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Nueces County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, RICHARD HAROLD VOLLICK, JR., attempts to appeal a conviction for driving while intoxicated. The trial court has certified that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On January 12, 2004, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification.

On February 16, 2004, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel’s response fails to establish either that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); see Tex. R. App. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 1st day of April, 2004.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Richard Harold Vollick, Jr. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-harold-vollick-jr-v-state-texapp-2004.