Loggins Logistics, Inc., and Scott Baird v. Bradley Garren, Individually, and as Next Friend of Olivia Garren, a Minor
Loggins Logistics, Inc., and Scott Baird v. Bradley Garren, Individually, and as Next Friend of Olivia Garren, a Minor
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-11-00027-CV
______________________________
LOGGINS LOGISTICS, INC., AND SCOTT BAIRD, Appellants
V.
BRADLEY GARREN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF
OLIVIA GARREN, A MINOR, Appellee
On Appeal from the 202nd Judicial District Court
Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 10C1130-202
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Loggins Logistics, Inc., and Scott Baird, appellants, and Bradley Garren, individually, and as next friend of Olivia Garren, a minor, appellee, have filed with this Court a joint motion to dismiss the pending appeal in this matter. The parties represent to this Court that the case has been settled and that the trial court approved the minor’s settlement May 9, 2011. In such a case, no real controversy exists.
We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: May 18, 2011
Date Decided: May 19, 2011
t:200%'> Counsel mailed a copy of the brief and a letter to McLendon September 28, 2011, informing McLendon of her right to file a pro se response and of her right to review the record. No response has been filed. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and find no genuinely arguable issue. See Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). We, therefore, agree with counsel’s assessment that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.[1]
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: November 30, 2011
Date Decided: December 14, 2011
Do Not Publish
[1]Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition 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 or for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. (amended by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 11-104, effective Sept. 1, 2011). 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.