Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2006

Alfredo Regalado, Individually, and D/B/A 4 Aces Bail Bonds v. State

Alfredo Regalado, Individually, and D/B/A 4 Aces Bail Bonds v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided February 9, 2006

Alfredo Regalado, Individually, and D/B/A 4 Aces Bail Bonds v. State

Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

                             NUMBER 13-05-752-CV

 

                         COURT OF APPEALS

 

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

 

ALFREDO REGALADO, INDIVIDUALLY,

D/B/A 4 ACES BAIL BONDS,                                      Appellant,

 

                                           v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                              Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

 

                   On appeal from the 93rd District Court

                            of Hidalgo County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________

 

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

      Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

 


Appellant, ALFREDO REGALADO, INDIVIDUALLY, D/B/A 4 ACES BAIL BONDS, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number 0222-02-B(N).  Judgment in this cause was signed on February 2, 2005.  No timely motion for new trial was filed.  Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on March 4, 2005, but was not filed until December 6, 2005. 

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done.  Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court=s letter, the appeal would be dismissed.  To date, no response has been received from appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant=s failure to respond to this Court=s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 9th day of February, 2006.

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