Rodney Scott Gibbs v. The State of Texas Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 10 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed; Opinion Filed January 26, 2018 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01414-CR RODNEY SCOTT GIBBS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. M17-18639-L MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Evans Rodney Scott Gibbs appeals his conviction for assault family violence. After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at 365 days in the county jail, probated for eighteen months, and a $300 fine. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, followed by a motion for new trial which was granted on January 22, 2018. The following day, appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw the appeal. That motion, however, was not signed by appellant as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Therefore, we deny appellant’s motion. When the trial court grants a motion for new trial, the case is restored to its position before the former trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b). Because there is no sentence to be appealed, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. See Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 643–44 (Tex. App.– Dallas 1996, no pet.). We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. /David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 171414F.U05 –2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT RODNEY SCOTT GIBBS, Appellant No. 05-17-01414-CR On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. M17-18639-L. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, Justices Francis and Boatright participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Judgment entered this 26th day of January, 2018. –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.