Richard Prewitt v. State
This text of Richard Prewitt v. State (Richard Prewitt 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.
Opinion
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Pending before this Court is appellant's motion to dismiss his appeal. Pursuant to Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the request to withdraw the notice of appeal is signed by appellant. No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
span.WPFloatStyle { visibility: hidden; position: absolute; left: 10px; right: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 225); border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: black; margin-top: 25px; padding: 6px; line-height: normal } span.WPNormal { font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-indent: 0in } body { font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal }
NO. 07-07-0222-CR
NO. 07-07-0223-CR
NO. 07-07-0225-CR
NO. 07-07-0226-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
______________________________
LINDSEY FORD JR., APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
________________________________
FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NOS. 2006-413,878, 2006-413,889, 2006-413,895, and 2006-414,532;
HONORABLE JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION
Appellant, Lindsey Ford Jr., has filed a motion wherein he requests that this Court grant him additional time to file a motion for rehearing in each of four appeals referenced above. For the reasons stated, said motion is denied.
Discussion
On June 24, 2008, this Court issued its opinion in No. 07-07-0222-CR, affirming Appellant’s conviction for the offense of forgery. At the same time, this Court issued its opinion in No. 07-07-0223-CR, 07-07-0225-CR, and 07-07-0226-CR, affirming Appellant’s three convictions for the offense of burglary of a habitation. The judgment of this Court was entered on the same day in each cause. On August 13, 2008, Appellant, acting pro se, filed his Motion for Extention (sic) of Time, requesting that this Court grant him additional time to file a motion for rehearing.
A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the court of appeals’ judgment or order is rendered. Tex. R. App. P. 49.1. A court of appeals may extend the time for filing a motion if a party files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last date for filing the motion for rehearing. Tex. R. App. P. 49.8. A motion complies with Rule 10.5(b) if it states (A) the deadline for filing the item in question; (B) the length of extension sought; (C) the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension; and (D) the number of previous extensions granted regarding the item in question. Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b).
The judgment of this Court was entered on June 24, 2008; therefore, the deadline for filing a motion for rehearing was July 9, 2008. Appellant’s motion was filed on August 13, 2008, more than 15 days after the last date for filing the motion for rehearing. Because Appellant’s motion for extension of time was not timely filed, we need not address whether the motion complied with the requirements of Rule 10.5(b).
Appellant’s motion for extension of time is denied.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Richard Prewitt v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-prewitt-v-state-texapp-2003.