Timothy Wayne Fisher v. State
Timothy Wayne Fisher v. State
Opinion
J!kM^Am„<<m,~^^-.J&^ id^^^m,
y^fc^^GS^^^.^^ TM0W VL tfsm C^USE •* J3Z233S, -msormoF-mm
^yn^iSJQA rtg ?TMg
TO TW£ /4ON0MBU2 JUfi^E OF SAI& COURf; Comes utaw iTHOTfiy Fisher (i>gF&»MriPm-m m Ttfe >&&ME 5ryte hqmbsk msE m s^tes; DHFENMtfT /S Rfi3U6STlMS m ATM* & EXTEHSkM to BBABiB *7P Fim P£R BftrtfF-TO C'GA Court due 7b /*rs Ufck of KhoMjeuse A-a> ay "Uiat 0#a& PR6^& m to the /acr Ms 44wy#* PflovH>s> ^ T#£ ST/KTB THAT Film MS DIRECT APPmL Wrr M$ m$ M iMFT
A* Due to the &tr im pepmwfr is cuRf?sN7iy PM^ W7^i«ri^
._.- „ HECEIVED ' , FIRST COURT OF APPEALS ! HOUSTON, TEXASI ' OCT 1 2 2015 CHRISTOPHER A. PRIME ICLERK mm W TH6 W OF- the moti&j aiotjLbm &Wna> ... \£Hm>±*~*.
WORTH TEXAS TX FSDC DALLAS TX 750 •06 -OCT 2015 FM 7 L loixxxpa-rk/ TT>. 16%?7 ov)#vW*s ^gus^ /•Trst District courtat appeal ^11^ \smcr cteR^K applet FAfltiM ST
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.