Melvin Liggins v. State

NO. 12-12-00364-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MELVIN LIGGINS, § APPEAL FROM THE 420TH APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

Appellant Melvin Liggins filed a pro se notice of appeal in which he complains that the trial court has failed to rule on his pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant also complains in his notice of appeal that the trial court has violated his constitutional rights on several occasions since Appellant’s arrest.

On October 18, 2012, this court notified Appellant, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.2, that the information received in this appeal does not contain a final judgment or other appealable order. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be dismissed if the information received in the appeal was not amended on or before November 19, 2012, to show the jurisdiction of this court. The November 19 deadline has passed, and Appellant has neither shown the jurisdiction of this court nor otherwise responded to the court’s November 19 notice.

Because Appellant has not shown the jurisdiction of this court, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered November 21, 2012.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT NOVEMBER 21, 2012 NO. 12-12-00364-CR MELVIN LIGGINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 420th Judicial District Court

Of Nacogdoches County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F1219037)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.