In the Interest of S.L.G., a juvenile--Appeal from County Court of Taylor County

Annotate this Case

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

In the Interest of S.L.G., a juvenile

No. 11-02-00282-CV B Appeal from Taylor County

On October 26, 1994, the juvenile court entered an order waiving its jurisdiction and allowing appellant to be tried as an adult in criminal district court. On September 16, 2002, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging the 1994 order. In response to our notification that the notice of appeal appeared to be out of time and our request that appellant show grounds for continuing the appeal, appellant has filed three pro se documents: a justification for continuation of appeal, a motion for production of trial transcript from the hearing to transfer jurisdiction to the criminal court, and a motion for appointment of counsel.

Appellant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the juvenile court=s proceeding because counsel failed to mention his prior suicide attempt and failed to request additional psychological evaluation. Appellant further argues that the trial court deprived him of a fundamentally fair hearing when it Afound him to be a sophisticated child - when in fact he was simi-retard (sic) and was absolutely illiterate and had/has an extensive history of mental illness.@ Appellant also complains that the trial court erred by failing to order additional psychological evaluation. Appellant does not explain why his 2002 notice of appeal invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this court to review his 1994 order certifying him to be tried as an adult.

Appellant=s 2002 notice of appeal is not timely under TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1; therefore, appellant has not perfected an appeal from the 1994 order. Appellant=s motions are overruled, and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

October 3, 2002 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, 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.