Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2004

Delvin Busby v. State

Delvin Busby v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided June 23, 2004

Delvin Busby v. State

Opinion










In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-04-00072-CR

______________________________



DELVIN DEWAYNE BUSBY, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



                                              


On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21,853



                                                 




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

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss



MEMORANDUM OPINION


            Delvin Dewayne Busby has appealed from his retaliation conviction in Hunt County. Appeals from that county may be directed to either the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas or this Court. We filed the appeal here based on a docketing statement directed to this Court specifying we were to receive the appeal. We have now received the record, and the notice of appeal specifies appeal to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas. We have contacted the clerk's office for the Fifth Court of Appeals and have been informed that notice of appeal was sent there.

            Therefore, the appeal was improvidently filed here. Accordingly, we direct the clerk of our Court to ship the clerk's record to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas so the appeal may proceed there.

            We dismiss this appeal. 

 

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice


Date Submitted:          June 22, 2004

Date Decided:             June 23, 2004


Do Not Publish

n appellant has assistance of counsel, the court is entitled to look solely to the attorney and is not required to consider pro se motions. McKinny v. State, 76 S.W.3d 463, 478 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Ashcraft v. State, 900 S.W.2d 817, 831 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, pet. ref'd, pet. dism'd [2 pets.]). The trial court did not violate a ministerial duty by declining to rule on the motions filed.

            We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

 

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice


Date Submitted:          April 28, 2004

Date Decided:             April 29, 2004

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