John R. Gordon v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 147th District Court of Travis County
Annotate this CaseAT AUSTIN
NO. 3-92-089-CR
JOHN R. GORDON,
APPELLANT
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 105,231, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE
PER CURIAM
This is an appeal from a conviction for theft. Punishment was assessed at confinement for two years and a $10,000 fine.
Appellant has filed an amended motion to withdraw the appeal. No decision of this Court has been delivered. The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. Ann. 59(b) (Pamph. 1992).
[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and B. A. Smith]
Dismissed On Appellant's Amended Motion
Filed: June 3, 1992
[Do Not Publish]
June 3, 1992
Mr. Stanley G. Schneider
Eleven Greenway Plaza
Suite 3112
Houston, Texas 77046
Honorable Ronald Earle
District Attorney
Travis County Courthouse
P. O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767
Re: No. 3-92-089-CR--John R. Gordon v. The State of Texas (t/c no. 105,231)
Counsel:
In accordance with Rule 91, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, enclosed is a copy of the opinion and judgment handed down by this Court on this date in the above cause.
You are hereby notified that appellant's original motion to withdraw appeal in the above cause with this day submitted and dismissed.
The Court's mandate has been issued this date to the clerk of the trial court under separate cover.
Very truly yours,
W. KENNETH LAW, CLERK
By
Barbara E. Chapman, Deputy
Enclosures
xc: State Prosecuting Attorney
Clerk, Court of Criminal Appeals
Honorable Wilford Flowers, District Judge
Ms. Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza, District Clerk
MR. STANLEY G. SCHNEIDER
ELEVEN GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 3112
HOUSTON TX 77046
HONORABLE RONALD EARLE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TRAVIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE
P. O. BOX 1748
AUSTIN TX 78767
TRIAL COURT NO. 105,231THE STATE OF TEXAS.
TO THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT of TRAVIS COUNTY - GREETINGS:
Before our COURT OF APPEALS, on the 3rd of June A.D. 1992, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment between
JOHN R. GORDON, Appellant,
No. 3-92-089-CR vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee,
was determined; and therein our said COURT OF APPEALS made its orders in these words:
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the amended written motion of the appellant to withdraw the appeal and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the same should be granted: it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that appellant be allowed to withdraw notice of appeal and that the appeal be dismissed; that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
WHEREFORE, We command you to observe the order of said COURT OF APPEALS in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed.
WITNESS the HONORABLE JIMMY CARROLL, Chief Justice of our said COURT OF APPEALS for the Third District of Texas, with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Austin, this the 3rd day of June A.D. 1992.
W. KENNETH LAW, CLERK
by: , Deputy
Barbara E. Chapman
June 3, 1992
Ms. Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza
District Clerk
Travis County Courthouse
P. O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767
Re: No. 3-92-089-CR--John R. Gordon v. State of Texas
(t/c no. 105,231)
Dear Ms. Rodriguez-Mendoza:
Enclosed, with reference to the above cause, is the mandate of this Court. Please acknowledge your receipt of same by returning the enclosed card (No. 1) to this office, appropriately completed.
Rule 87(b), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, sets out the procedures to be followed upon your receipt of the mandate.
Upon execution of the mandate in accordance with the rule, either your office or the sheriff's office should return the remaining card enclosed (No. 2), appropriately completed.
Your cooperation in this regard is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
W. KENNETH LAW, CLERK
by
Barbara E. Chapman, Deputy
Enclosures to Clerk
xc: Mr. Stanley G. Schneider
Honorable Ronald Earle, District Attorney
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.