Richard Dean Baker v. State
Richard Dean Baker v. State
Opinion
Opinion
Richard Dean Baker pleaded guilty to delivery of cocaine in an amount greater than one gram and less than four grams, which was enhanced by a prior felony conviction. The trial court sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment on November 5, 2001. Baker did not file a timely motion for new trial; therefore, his notice of appeal was due by December 5, 2001, or with a proper request for an extension, by December 20, 2001. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3. Baker did not file his pro se notice of appeal until January 23, 2002. Because Baker did not file a timely notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). (1)
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
William J. Cornelius
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: March 14, 2002
Date Decided: March 14, 2002
Do Not Publish 1. In Olivo, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted that the denial of a meaningful appeal
because of ineffective assistance of counsel is a proper ground for habeas corpus relief. Olivo v.
State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
rity="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-11-00112-CV
______________________________
WILLIAM F. CALLEJO, TRUSTEE, Appellant
V.
REPUBLIC PROPERTY COMPANY, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court No. 09-14857
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, William F. Callejo, Trustee, and appellee, Republic Property Company, Inc., have filed with this Court a joint motion to vacate the trial courts final judgment and remand the case to the trial court.[1] The parties represent to this Court that they have reached a full and final settlement. In such a case, no real controversy exists, and in the absence of a controversy, the appeal is moot.
The parties have also requested that we issue our mandate immediately. See Tex. R. App. P. 18.1(c).
We grant the motion. We set aside, without regard to the merits, the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). Our mandate shall issue immediately.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: November 1, 2011
Date Decided: November 2, 2011
[1]Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See Tex. Govt Code Ann. § 73.001 (West 2005). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.