Joseph Anthony Pope v. State
Joseph Anthony Pope v. State
Opinion
NO. 12-14-00183-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS JOSEPH ANTHONY POPE, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. The trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for two years in a state jail facility.
We have received the clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s certification showing that Appellant waived his right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). The clerk’s record also includes a copy of the written waiver of Appellant’s right to appeal, which is signed by Appellant and his counsel.
On July 23, 2014, this court notified Appellant that the clerk’s record indicates he has waived his right to appeal. Appellant was further notified that the appeal would be dismissed unless, on or before August 4, 2014, the information in this appeal is amended to show this court’s jurisdiction. The deadline for amendment has now passed, and Appellant has neither shown the jurisdiction of this court nor otherwise responded to this court’s notice. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Opinion delivered August 6, 2014.
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(DO NOT PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT AUGUST 6, 2014
NO. 12-14-00183-CR
JOSEPH ANTHONY POPE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0300-14) 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.