Timothy Scott Murphy v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 4, 2015
Docket09-15-00043-CR
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Timothy Scott Murphy v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

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Submitted on March 3, 2015 Opinion Delivered March 4, 2015 Do Not Publish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

Slaton v. State
981 S.W.2d 208 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Timothy Scott Murphy v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-scott-murphy-v-state-texapp-2015.