Sears, Maria and Thomas Priestly v. Nueces County Sheriff Larry Olivarez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 3, 2000
• Docket: 13-00-00344-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-00-344-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

MARIA SEARS AND THOMAS PRIESTLY, Appellants,

v.

NUECES COUNTY SHERIFF LARRY OLIVAREZ, ET AL., Appellees.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 214th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Before the Court En Banc

Appellees Nueces County Sheriff Larry Olivarez, et al., by and through their attorney of record, Walter Bryan, Assistant Nueces County Attorney, have filed a request for rehearing on Appellants' Unopposed Motion to Transfer. For the reasons stated herein, we dismiss the motion for rehearing as moot.

Background

On June 23, 2000, this court received "Appellants Sears' and Priestly's Unopposed Motion to Transfer," alternatively entitled "Appellant Bradford Condit's Unopposed Motion to Transfer." The certificate of service reflects that a copy of this motion was provided to Bryan this same date by mail. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that a party may file a response to a motion at any time before the court rules on the motion or by any deadline set by the court. Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(b); see also 13^th Tex. App. (Corpus Christi) Loc. R. III. Appellees failed to file a response to the "Unopposed Motion to Transfer," and this Court, sitting en banc, denied the motion with an opinion issued on August 3, 2000. Appellees filed their motion for rehearing on August 16, 2000, within fifteen days after the order was rendered. See Tex. R. App. P. 49.1.

Motion for Rehearing

Appellees request a rehearing for the sole purpose of determining their opposition to the "Unopposed Motion to Transfer." Appellees admit that they were unopposed to appellants' submission of a motion to transfer, but state that:

Appellees would have been and are currently opposed to the type of disingenuous hyperbole expounded by Appellants' counsel through the MOTION . . .

Appellees vehemently oppose the rampant innuendo, speculation, and conspiracy theories contained in the MOTION . . .

Appellees file this formal written motion for rehearing so as to not tacitly condone the MOTION and attachments which personally attack the integrity of the honorable justices of this court and its judicial process.

We note that appellees state they attempted to confer with counsel for appellants, Bradford M. Condit, about the merits of their motion for rehearing, "but he could not decide if he was opposed." Appellants have not subsequently filed a response to the motion for rehearing.

Analysis and Conclusion

Appellees' motion for rehearing fails to request relief from or modification of this Court's opinion as issued on August 3, 2000. Insofar as appellees fail to request substantive relief from this Court's rulings in its opinion, appellees' motion for rehearing requires no further consideration, and is dismissed as moot.

In accordance with our prior ruling, we are forwarding copies of appellees' motion for rehearing and this opinion to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and to the Office of General Counsel of the State Bar of Texas.

EN BANC

Publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion on Motion for Rehearing delivered and

filed this the 7th day of September, 2000.