Tony Shane Peters v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 26, 2004
Docket13-03-00725-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Tony Shane Peters v. State (Tony Shane Peters 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
Tony Shane Peters v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion



NUMBER 13-03-725-CV


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________


TONY SHANE PETERS,                                                     Appellant,


v.


THE STATE OF TEXAS TDCJ-ID, ET AL.,                            Appellees.

___________________________________________________________________


On appeal from the 24th District Court

of De Witt County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Opinion Per Curiam


         Appellant, TONY SHANE PETERS, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 24th District Court of De Witt County, Texas, in cause number 02-09-129,123. Judgment in this cause was signed on September 30, 2003. No timely motion for new trial was filed. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on October 30, 2003, but was not filed until December 4, 2003.

         Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has filed an untimely motion for leave to file notice of appeal and a motion requesting that the appeal not be dismissed.

         The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant’s motions, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant’s untimely motion for leave to file notice of appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant’s motion requesting that the appeal not be dismissed is dismissed as moot. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

                                                                                 PER CURIAM

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 26th day of February, 2004.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tony Shane Peters v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tony-shane-peters-v-state-texapp-2004.