EBS Construction, Inc., and Battles Steel Construction, Inc. v. J. D. Drew










In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-03-00145-CV

______________________________



EBS CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND

BATTLES STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellants

 

V.

 

J. D. DREW, Appellee



                                              


On Appeal from the 159th Judicial District Court

Angelina County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-30146-97-4



                                                 




Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter



MEMORANDUM OPINION


            Appellants, EBS Construction, Inc., and Battles Steel Construction, Inc., have moved this Court to dismiss its appeal against appellee, J. D. Drew. As authorized by Tex. R. App. P. 42.1, we grant appellants' motion for dismissal.

            Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

 


                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice


Date Submitted:          January 26, 2004

Date Decided:             January 27, 2004


             

font-family: Times New Roman"> As for Davison's contention that Brown's testimony was inadmissible under Rule 509(b) and because Davison was not given the Miranda warnings, she did not object to Brown's testimony at the revocation proceeding and has, therefore, waived the issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).





We affirm the judgment.



Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice



Date Submitted: December 23, 2002

Date Decided: January 30, 2003



Do Not Publish

1. Davison also contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her community supervision because the record shows she did not fail to "avoid injurious or vicious habits, including abstaining from the use of all intoxicating beverages," as required under the terms of her community supervision. The record is clear, however, that the State did not allege she violated this requirement and that the trial court did not revoke her community supervision for this reason.