Wesley Perkins v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 30, 2015
Docket03-14-00733-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Wesley Perkins v. State (Wesley Perkins 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
Wesley Perkins v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-14-00733-CR 3957917 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/30/2015 12:37:46 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK No Oral Argument Requested

No. 03-14-00733-CR FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS (Should be –CV) AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/30/2015 12:37:46 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE In The Clerk

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WESLEY PERKINS, Respondent – Appellant, v. STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff – Appellee. (Brief Due: Jan. 29, 2015)

On Direct Appeal from the COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

Trial Cause No. C-1-CR-13-200882 STATE v. PERKINS (should be CV)

PERKINS’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PRINCIPAL BRIEF

Assertion of Rights

Appellant asserts all his unalienable rights, privileges, and immunities at

Natural Law, Common Law, and Maritime Law, and all his commercial rights

relevant to “this state.”  Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to file Principal Brief (PERKINS) 1 No Notice. No commercial nexus. Objection to Non-judicial Decision-making

Appellant still objects to non-judicial decision-making. Cf. Gonzalez v.

United States, 553 U.S. 242 (May 12, 2008) (“If the parties consent”) (construing

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)).

Objection to use of private law

Appellant also still objects to the use of unpublished cases to which he’s not

a party. A cite to “WL” and “Lexis” is a reference to materials not publicly

accessible. For such references even to begin to be meaningful, a full copy of the

opinion for each “WL” or “Lexis” reference must be attached.

Motion

PERKINS moves that he be allowed at least 10 minutes extra to file his

Principal Brief.

Discussion

The electronic filing timestamp indicated 12:05. Therefore, given the 10

minutes requested, the original filing will be timely.

Request for Relief

PERKINS requests that he be allowed an extra 10 minutes to submit his  Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to file Principal Brief (PERKINS) 2 No Notice. No commercial nexus. Principal Brief.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Wes Perkins WESLEY PERKINS 11900 Metric Blvd, # J179 Austin, Texas 78758

Certificate of Service

By my signature below, I certify that on or about the 30th day of January, 2015, I served a true and correct copy of this Motion by email, where possible, and otherwise by hand delivery, certified mail, 3-day or faster delivery, or first class mail on the following:

DAVID ESCAMILLA LISA C. MCMINN Travis County Attorney State Prosecuting Attorney’s Office P.O. Box 1748 P.O. Box 13046 Austin, TX 78767 Austin, TX 78711 (STATE)

/s/ Wes Perkins WESLEY PERKINS

 Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to file Principal Brief (PERKINS) 3 No Notice. No commercial nexus.

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

Related

Gonzalez v. United States
128 S. Ct. 1765 (Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wesley Perkins v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wesley-perkins-v-state-texapp-2015.