Robert Dale Knoop v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 7, 2014
Docket07-14-00380-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Robert Dale Knoop v. State (Robert Dale Knoop 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
Robert Dale Knoop v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00380-CR

ROBERT DALE KNOOP, JR., APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 31st District Court Hemphill County, Texas Trial Court No. 2506, Honorable Steven Ray Emmert, Presiding

October 21, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Appellant, Robert Dale Knoop, Jr., pled guilty to and was convicted of the offense

of driving while intoxicated. On January 24, 2002, appellant was sentenced to

incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, for a

period of fifteen years, and a $500 fine. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal of this

conviction and was appointed counsel. After appointed counsel filed a motion to

withdraw supported by an Anders brief, see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45,

87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), this Court independently examined the record and, agreeing with counsel’s assessment that there were no arguable grounds that

might support the appeal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial

court’s judgment. See Knoop v. State, No. 07-02-00199-CR, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS

8037, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Nov. 8, 2002, pet. ref’d). Following refusal of

appellant’s petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,

mandate was issued on May 7, 2003. This Court’s plenary power expired 60 days after

judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1(a).

On October 13, 2014, appellant filed a notice of appeal referencing the above-

identified trial court cause number. However, because this Court issued mandate in the

appeal from that cause more than eleven years ago, this Court does not have

jurisdiction over appellant’s attempted appeal. Because this Court is without plenary

power over this appeal, no further action may be taken by this Court in this proceeding

and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robert Dale Knoop v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-dale-knoop-v-state-texapp-2014.