Russell Vernon Freeman v. State
This text of Russell Vernon Freeman v. State (Russell Vernon Freeman 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
Russell Vernon Freeman appeals from his adjudication of guilt for the offense of deadly conduct with a firearm. The sentence was imposed June 16, 2008. Freeman filed a timely motion for new trial on July 15, 2008, and a notice of appeal on October 1, 2008.
According to Rule 26.2, Freeman, because he filed a timely motion for new trial, had ninety days after the day sentence was imposed to file a notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2). Therefore, Freeman had until September 15, 2008, to file a notice of appeal or a motion to extend the time to file his notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. No motion to extend the time to file the notice of appeal was filed. Hence, this appeal is untimely and we are without jurisdiction to hear this case.
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: October 21, 2008
Date Decided: October 22, 2008
Do Not Publish
ont-family: Arial"> The record provided to this Court does not allow us to determine the status of the underlying probate proceeding with sufficient certainty to be able to ascertain whether the motion has been filed or ruled on by the county court or whether it was timely filed at all. The record is likewise ambiguous about the status of the probate proceeding itself before the county court. Under these circumstances, we cannot at this time conclude Logan is entitled to relief on these grounds.
Logan also asks this Court to order the county court to appoint counsel to represent him. The Texas Supreme Court has held that, in some exceptional cases, the public and private interests at stake are such that the administration of justice may best be served by appointing a lawyer to represent an indigent civil litigant. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590, 594 (Tex. 1996). However, as the court has also recognized recently in Gibson v. Tolbert, No. 02-0190, 2003 WL 1561442 (Tex. Mar. 27, 2003), the existence of the extraordinary circumstances required to authorize such appointment is a fact-based question that is best answered in connection with each specific case.
From the information provided here, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that such extraordinary circumstances are shown as would require us to order the county court to appoint counsel. Our decision on this limited record does not, of course, preclude the county court from doing so should it determine that to be appropriate.
The petition is denied.
Donald R. Ross
Date Submitted: May 27, 2003
Date Decided: May 28, 2003
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Russell Vernon Freeman v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-vernon-freeman-v-state-texapp-2008.