Karl Lynda Shackelford v. The City of TylerAppeal from ... of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-13-00143-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS KARL LYNDA SHACKELFORD, APPELLAN § APPEAL FROM THE V. § MUNICIPAL COURT THE CITY OF TYLER, APPELLEE § CITY OF TYLER, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On May 1, 2013, Appellant Karl Lynda Shackelford filed a notice of appeal evidencing his intent to appeal a judgment from the municipal court of the City of Tyler. On that same date, this court notified Shackelford, pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1, that the notice of appeal does not show the jurisdiction of this court. The notice referred Shackelford to Article 45.042(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires that appeals from municipal court be heard by the county court. Shackelford was further notified that the appeal would be dismissed unless, on or before May 13, 2013, the information was amended to show the jurisdiction of this court. Shackelford responded to the May 1, 2013 notice, but failed to show the jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3. Opinion delivered May 15, 2013. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT MAY 15, 2013 NO. 12-13-00143-CR KARL LYNDA SHACKELFORD, Appellant V. THE CITY OF TYLER, Appellee Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of Tyler, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 13-06338) 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.

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.