Timothy Scott Murphy v. State
This text of Timothy Scott Murphy v. State (Timothy Scott Murphy 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
In The
Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-15-00043-CR ____________________
TIMOTHY SCOTT MURPHY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 260th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. D-140,239-R ________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 16, 2014, the trial court sentenced Timothy Scott Murphy on a
conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Murphy filed a notice of
appeal on January 16, 2015. The trial court signed a certification in which the court
certified that this is a plea-bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal,
and that the defendant waived the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).
The district clerk has provided the trial court’s certification to the Court of
Appeals. On January 28, 2015, we notified the parties that we would dismiss the
1 appeal unless the appellant established that the certification is incorrect. 1 No
response has been filed. Because the trial court’s certification shows the defendant
does not have the right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.
25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice
Submitted on March 3, 2015 Opinion Delivered March 4, 2015 Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
1 We also notified the parties that a motion for extension of time was required because Murphy filed his notice of appeal more than thirty days after the date of sentencing. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3. He did not file a motion for extension of time. The appeal is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Timothy Scott Murphy v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-scott-murphy-v-state-texapp-2015.