Adam Perez v. State

Summarize Case

Related Cases

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 28, 2015 NO. 03-15-00412-CR Adam Perez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee APPEAL FROM THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE This is an attempted appeal from the proceeding in the trial court. Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because no final judgment of conviction was rendered. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made. TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 28, 2015 NO. 03-15-00413-CR Adam Perez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee APPEAL FROM THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE This is an attempted appeal from the proceeding in the trial court. Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because no final judgment of conviction was rendered. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made. TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 28, 2015 NO. 03-15-00414-CR Adam Perez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee APPEAL FROM THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE This is an attempted appeal from the proceeding in the trial court. Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because no final judgment of conviction was rendered. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.