Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2014

Michael Kennedy v. State

Michael Kennedy v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided April 23, 2014

Michael Kennedy v. State

Opinion

NO. 12-14-00067-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS MICHAEL KENNEDY, § APPEAL FROM THE 87TH APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On March 19, 2014, Appellant Michael Kennedy filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of his civil rights action. However, the trial court clerk notified this court that no final judgment has been signed. Therefore, 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 April 21, 2014, to show the jurisdiction of this court. The deadline for amendment has passed, and Appellant has neither responded to the court’s March 19, 2014 notice or otherwise shown the jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2, 42.3.

Opinion delivered April 23, 2014.

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

(PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT APRIL 23, 2014

NO. 12-14-00067-CV

MICHAEL KENNEDY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 87th District Court of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 87-11917) 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.