Robert Franklin Caldwell v. Dewayne DewberryAppeal from 3rd District Court of Anderson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-13-00124-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS ROBERT FRANKLIN CALDWELL, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DEWAYNE DEWBERRY, APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On April 19, 2013, Appellant, Robert F. Caldwell, filed a notice of appeal expressing his intent to appeal an order of dismissal signed on March 22, 2013. By letter dated April 23, 2013, the Anderson County District Clerk advised this court that a notice had been sent to Caldwell in error by that office, advising him that an order of dismissal had been signed on March 22, 2013. The district clerk further advised that the letter should have informed Caldwell that a bill of cost, not an order of dismissal, was enclosed. On March 25, 2013, this court notified Caldwell that the information received in this appeal, including the district clerk s letter, did not show the jurisdiction of this court. Caldwell was further notified that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before May 28, 2013, to show the jurisdiction of this court. In response to the March 25, 2013 notice, Caldwell informed this court that he had no documentation relating to a March 22, 2013 dismissal order. Moreover, we have received the clerk s record in this appeal, which includes a dismissal order signed on August 30, 2010, rather than on March 22, 2013. Thus, the information filed in the appeal still does not show the jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2, 42.3. Opinion delivered May 22, 2013. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT MAY 22, 2013 NO. 12-13-00124-CV ROBERT FRANKLIN CALDWELL, Appellant V. DEWAYNE DEWBERRY, Appellee Appeal from the 3rd Judicial District Court of Anderson County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 3-41282) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. 3 THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE ********************************************* TO THE 3RD DISTRICT COURT of ANDERSON COUNTY, GREETING: Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 22nd day of May, 2013, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between ROBERT FRANKLIN CALDWELL, Appellant NO. 12-13-00124-CV; Trial Court No. 3-41282 By per curiam opinion. DEWAYNE DEWBERRY, Appellee was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words: THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Tyler, this the ______ day of __________________, 201____. CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK By:_______________________________ Deputy Clerk 4

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.