19 2011 31 2011 44 27 2011 v. 878 162 163 64 1994 (2011)

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

On May 19, 2011, we notified Hutchinson's appointed attorney of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because bail has now been set, and we informed him that this appeal was subject to dismissal unless he or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed a response with this court by May 31, 2011, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex.R.App. P. 44.3. On April 27, 2011, Hutchinson's appointed attorney filed “Appellant's Response Regarding Jurisdiction for Pro Se Appeal,” explaining that Hutchinson's appeal of the no bail bond amount is moot because the trial court has set bail. See Criner v. State, 878 S.W.2d 162, 163–64 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). Hutchinson also filed a pro se response, but it did not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

NO. 02–11–00150–CR

Decided: June 20, 2011

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.² See Tex.R.App. P. 43.2(f).

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY and MEIER, J.J.

Tex.R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 16, 2011

FOOTNOTES

FN2. Hutchinson's appeal from the order setting bail at $200,000, appellate cause number 02–11–00176–CR, is not affected by this dismissal.. FN2. Hutchinson's appeal from the order setting bail at $200,000, appellate cause number 02–11–00176–CR, is not affected by this dismissal.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law