James Lawrence Copeland v. The State of TexasAppeal from 363rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed March 27, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00393-CR JAMES LAWRENCE COPELAND, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11-58889-W MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang-Miers, Murphy, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers James Lawrence Copeland was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon involving family violence and sentenced to thirty years imprisonment. On March 12, 2013, the trial court granted appellant s motion for new trial. We now have before us appellant s motion to dismiss the appeal because the motion for new trial was granted. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeal An order granting a new trial restores the case to its position before the former trial and there is no longer a judgment in place. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b); Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 643 44 (Tex. App. Dallas 1996, no pet.). Absent a judgment of conviction we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. We grant appellant s motion to dismiss. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. /Elizabeth Lang-Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 130393F.U05 2 S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT JAMES LAWRENCE COPELAND, Appellant No. 05-13-00393-CR On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11-58889-W. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, Justices Murphy and Fillmore participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2013. /Elizabeth Lang-Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE 3

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.