Jerry Autry, Individually and on Behalf of Autry-Kennedy Enterprises, Inc. v. Shawn Kennedy and OHM Automation, Inc.
Jerry Autry, Individually and on Behalf of Autry-Kennedy Enterprises, Inc. v. Shawn Kennedy and OHM Automation, Inc.
Opinion
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-08-00111-CV
Jerry Autry, Individually and on
Behalf of Autry-Kennedy Enterprises, Inc.,
Appellant
v.
Shawn Kennedy and OHM Automation, Inc.,
Appellees
From the 413th District Court
Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court No. C200500520
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Jerry Autry, individually and on behalf of the company he partially owned, Autry-Kennedy Enterprises, Inc., sued Shawn Kennedy and OHM Automation, Inc. Kennedy and OHM filed a motion for summary judgment and two supplemental motions for summary judgment alleging various grounds for summary judgment. The trial court granted all the motions without specifying upon which ground it was relying. Because at least one ground on which summary judgment was sought was not challenged on appeal, we affirm.
To obtain a reversal when the trial court does not specify the basis for its summary judgment, the appealing party must show it is error for the judgment to be based on any ground asserted in the motion. Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995). One ground asserted in Kennedy and OHM’s first motion was the defense of the statute of limitations. Autry did not respond to that ground at the trial court and has not challenged that ground in his appeal. Having no complaint from Autry regarding the trial court’s decision to grant the motion for summary judgment based on the limitations ground, we must affirm the summary judgment in favor of Kennedy and OHM. See Shanklin v. Grimes, No. 10-01-00023-CV, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5332 (Tex. App.—Waco June 25, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.); Heister v. W. Shamrock, No. 10-01-00366-CV, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5160 (Tex. App.—Waco June 18, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed September 24, 2008
[CV06]
s are frivolous when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” McCoy, 486 U.S. at 436. An appeal is not wholly frivolous when it is based on “arguable grounds.” Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.
After a review of the briefs and the entire record in these appeals, we determine that these appeals are wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
Should Henderson wish to seek further review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Henderson must either retain an attorney to file petitions for discretionary review or Henderson must file pro se petitions for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (citing Glover v. State, No. 06-07-00060-CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 9162 (Tex. App.—Texarkana, Nov. 20, 2007, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).
Counsel’s request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Henderson is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Henderson a copy of our decision, remind Henderson of his right to file pro se petitions for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel’s compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n. 22.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed June 22, 2011
Do not publish
[CRPM]
[1] The aggravated assault and the evading charges are the basis of No. 10-10-00397-CR, the aggravated robbery is the basis of No. 10-10-00398-CR, and the two assaults are the basis of No. 10-10-00399-CR. These causes were considered by the trial court together and counsel for Henderson submitted one brief covering all three appeals; therefore, we will also address the appeals jointly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.