IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
MARCH 8, 2002
______________________________
FRED ARTHUR JELLA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 40132-A; HONORABLE DAVID L. GLEASON, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE
Appellant Fred Arthur Jella has filed a pro se motion for stay of our mandate in which we affirmed an order of the trial court revoking his probation. He argues that he is having eye surgery and needs additional time "to prepare and file motions in The United States Supreme Court of Appeals."
Appellant has filed this motion pursuant to Rule 67.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. That rule applies to proceedings before the Court of Criminal Appeals and the purpose is to provide the Court of Criminal Appeals with enough time to decide whether to grant discretionary review on its own initiative. Under the rule, the Court of Criminal Appeals files with the clerk of the court of appeals an order staying the court of appeals' mandate. Tex. R. App. P. 67.2. There is no provision under that rule for appellant to apply directly to the court of appeals for stay of the mandate.
Further, our records show that appellant filed a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals, which was refused. He also filed a motion for rehearing, which was untimely. Therefore, the cited rule does not provide us with any authority to act on appellant's request.
Accordingly, the motion is overruled.
John T. Boyd
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
Supp. 2006).
Accordingly, appellant’s contention is without merit and the motion for rehearing is denied.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice