Gregory Lynn Henderson v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division, etal.--Appeal from 156th District Court of Bee County

Annotate this Case

NUMBER 13-06-281-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_________________________________________________________

  GREGORY LYNN HENDERSON, Appellant,

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE -

  CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, ET AL., Appellees.

________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas

________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

 

Appellant, GREGORY LYNN HENDERSON, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas, in cause number B-03-1411-CV-B. Pursuant to the trial court=s findings under Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a(4), the effective date of the judgment in this cause was February 7, 2006. A timely motion for new trial was filed. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on May 8, 2006, but was not filed until May 29, 2006.

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court=s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant=s failure to respond to this Court=s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 27th day of July, 2006.

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.