Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2014

Julian Alexander Ross v. State

Julian Alexander Ross v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided April 10, 2014

Julian Alexander Ross v. State

Opinion

NO. 12-14-00084-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS JULIAN ALEXANDER ROSS, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MMEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana in a drug free zone and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for four years. The State subsequently filed an application to proceed to final adjudication, which it amended on March 18, 2014. Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 12 of the State’s amended application.

The trial court granted the State’s amended application, found Appellant guilty, and sentenced Appellant to 20 months in a state jail facility.

We have received the trial court’s certification showing that Appellant waived his right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). The certification is signed by Appellant and his counsel.

The clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered April 10, 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(DO NOT PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT APRIL 10, 2014

NO. 12-14-00084-CR

JULIAN ALEXANDER ROSS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0150-11) 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.