Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2003

Michael Wayne McCollum v. State

Michael Wayne McCollum v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided July 29, 2003

Michael Wayne McCollum v. State

Opinion

















In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana



______________________________


No. 06-03-00049-CR

______________________________




MICHAEL WAYNE McCOLLUM, Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from the 6th Judicial District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20557









Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Michael Wayne McCollum has filed an appeal from his conviction on his plea of guilty, under a plea agreement, to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced in accordance with the agreement to eighteen years' imprisonment and a restitution order of $200,000.00.

On April 21, 2003, we wrote counsel, informing him we had noted a defect in the appeal because the record did not contain a certification of McCollum's right to appeal.

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d) now requires a certification to be made part of the record in every appeal filed by an appellant. That certification is a form which is an appendix to the rule and provides a certification by the trial court of the defendant's right to appeal. If the certification is not made part of the record, under the rule we have no option but to dismiss the appeal.

In our letter, we warned counsel that, if we did not receive the certification within ten days of the date of our letter, we would dismiss the appeal. As of the date of this opinion, counsel has not contacted this Court and no certification has been filed.



We dismiss the appeal.



Donald R. Ross

Justice



Date Submitted: July 28, 2003

Date Decided: July 29, 2003



Do Not Publish

on to dismiss the appeal. That motion is signed by counsel, but is not signed by the defendant as required by Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

We contacted counsel in an effort to obtain a motion containing Talton's signature. None has been forthcoming. In this instance, because of the nature of this appeal and the pendency of the felony appeal, we find it appropriate to apply Tex. R. App. P. 2 to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a), and based on the representations of counsel, we dismiss the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.







Donald R. Ross

Justice



Date Submitted: September 3, 2003

Date Decided: September 4, 2003



Do Not Publish

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.