Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2005

Barbara Garrison, Individually and as Acting Representative of the Estate of...

Barbara Garrison, Individually and as Acting Representative of the Estate of...
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided May 19, 2005

Barbara Garrison, Individually and as Acting Representative of the Estate of...

Opinion

NO. 07-05-0115-CV


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL D


MAY 19, 2005



______________________________




BARBARA GARRISON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ACTING

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES LESTER GARRISON,

DECEASED, LESLIE BRYAN GARRISON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND

JO BETH NICHOLS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SURVIVING CHILDREN

OF JAMES LESTER GARRISON, DECEASED, APPELLANTS


V.


TERESA DAILEY, COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEMS A/K/A

COVENANT HOSPITAL LEVELLAND, AND CHARLES V. HUGHES, M.D., APPELLEES





_________________________________


FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;


NO. 2003-522,438; HONORABLE SAM MEDINA, JUDGE


_______________________________


Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

ORDER

After Barbara Garrison, et al. filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court's two summary judgments in favor of appellees, appellee Charles V. Hughes, M.D. filed a conditional notice of appeal in the event that the summary judgments denied by implication his motion to dismiss Garrison, et al.'s claims. Pending before this Court is an agreed motion between Garrison, et al. and Dr. Hughes by which they request that Garrison et al.'s appeal as to Dr. Hughes be dismissed in its entirety as well as Dr. Hughes' conditional appeal.

Without passing on the merits of the appeal, we grant the motion and dismiss that portion of the appeal between Garrison, et al. and Charles V. Hughes, M.D. See Tex. R. App. 42.1(a). That portion of the appeal between Garrison, et al. and appellees Teresa Dailey, Covenant Health Systems, a/k/a Covenant Medical Center, and Covenant Hospital Levelland remains pending and will proceed in due course.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.

By his Anders brief, counsel raises several grounds that could arguably support an appeal. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005). We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel's motions to withdraw are hereby granted and the trial court's judgments are affirmed.

Don H. Reavis

Justice



Do not publish.

1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

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