Gordon N. Ridley v. State
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 21, 2018
NO. 03-18-00791-CR
Gordon N. Ridley, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND TOTH DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION—OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE
This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay
The State of Texas, Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND TOTH DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION—OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE
This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay
The State of Texas, Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND TOTH DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION—OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE
This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay
The State of Texas, Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND TOTH DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION—OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE
This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.