Donald Ray McCray v. F. Langehennig

 

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-06-00405-CV

 

Donald Ray McCray,

                                                                                    Appellant

 v.

 

F. LangeHennig, et al,

                                                                                    Appellee

 

 

 


From the 343rd District Court

Bee County, Texas

Trial Court No. B-05-1421-CV-C

 

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

 

Appellant Donald McCray is attempting to appeal the November 8, 2006 judgment of the 343rd District Court of Bee County.  We notified McCray that this appeal is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction because this Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over appeals from Bee County.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.201(k), (n) (Vernon Supp. 2006).  We stated that the appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless McCray filed with the court within twenty-one days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  McCray has not filed a response.[1]  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

 

PER CURIAM

 

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Vance, and

            Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed February 14, 2007

[CV06]

 



[1]               In another of his appeals, McCray requested us to transfer it and the instant appeal to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals.  We treated that request as a motion to transfer and dismissed it because we lacked authority to transfer it and because of noncompliance with the procedure to obtain the transfer of an appeal.  See McCray v. Reid, No. 10-06-00362-CV, slip. op. at 2 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 24, 2007, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).  We will treat that request similarly in this appeal and likewise dismiss it.

se appeals to be wholly frivolous.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27.  Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Should Parhm wish to seek further review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Parhm must either retain an attorney to file petitions for discretionary review or Parhm must file pro se petitions for discretionary review.  Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court.  See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2.  Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case.  See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3.  Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  See Tex R. App. P. 68.4.  See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (citing Glover v. State, No. 06-07-00060-CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 9162 (Tex. App.—Texarkana, Nov. 20, 2007, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).

Counsel’s request that she be allowed to withdraw from representation of Parhm is granted.  Additionally, counsel must send Parhm a copy of our decision, notify Parhm of his right to file pro se petitions for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel’s compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4.  Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n. 22.

 

                                                                        TOM GRAY

                                                                        Chief Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Reyna, and

            Justice Davis

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 24, 2010

Do not publish

[CR25]



[1] Each sentence bears its own cause number for purposes of appeal; however, the parties have submitted one brief covering both appeals; therefore, we will address the appeals jointly in the same manner.