Timothy J Conley v. Dennis Clifford Gates

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 9, 2018
Docket14-17-00482-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Timothy J Conley v. Dennis Clifford Gates (Timothy J Conley v. Dennis Clifford Gates) 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
Timothy J Conley v. Dennis Clifford Gates, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 9, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-17-00482-CV

TIMOTHY J. CONLEY, Appellant V. DENNIS CLIFFORD GATES, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1093283

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal arises from a petition for eviction brought by appellee Dennis Clifford Gates against appellant Timothy J. Conley. Both Gates and Conley appeared pro se at trial. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Gates and Conley brought this appeal.

In his first and second issues, Conley complains that Gates committed perjury when he testified. As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show: (1) the party presented a timely request, motion, or objection to the trial court sufficient to make trial court aware of complaint; and (2) the trial court ruled or refused to rule and the complaining party objected to the refusal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). The record does not show that Conley made the trial court aware of his complaints regarding Gates’ testimony. Accordingly, nothing is preserved for our review. Priddy v. Rawson, 282 S.W.3d 588, 597 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (holding appellants waived complaint because did not expressly present it to the trial court). Issues one and two are overruled.

Conley’s third issue claims the trial court exhibited an obvious bias against pro se litigants by more favorably treating lawyers. Conley failed to preserve error in the trial court regarding this contention. See Fox v. Alberto, 455 S.W.3d 659, 667 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (citing In re Estate of Gibbons, 451 S.W.3d 115, 122–23 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). Issue three is overruled.

Having overruled all of appellant’s issues, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/ John Donovan Justices

Panel consist of Justices Boyce, Donovan and Wise.

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

Related

Priddy v. Rawson
282 S.W.3d 588 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
in the Estate of Cecelia Margaret Gibbons
451 S.W.3d 115 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)
Stephen Fox v. Mirna Azucena Alberto
455 S.W.3d 659 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Timothy J Conley v. Dennis Clifford Gates, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-j-conley-v-dennis-clifford-gates-texapp-2018.