Timothy Scott Murphy v. The State of Texas Appeal from 260th District Court of Orange County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-15-00043-CR ____________________ TIMOTHY SCOTT MURPHY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________ On Appeal from the 260th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. D-140,239-R ________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 16, 2014, the trial court sentenced Timothy Scott Murphy on a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Murphy filed a notice of appeal on January 16, 2015. The trial court signed a certification in which the court certified that this is a plea-bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal, and that the defendant waived the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The district clerk has provided the trial court’s certification to the Court of Appeals. On January 28, 2015, we notified the parties that we would dismiss the 1 appeal unless the appellant established that the certification is incorrect. 1 No response has been filed. Because the trial court’s certification shows the defendant does not have the right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. ________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on March 3, 2015 Opinion Delivered March 4, 2015 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 1 We also notified the parties that a motion for extension of time was required because Murphy filed his notice of appeal more than thirty days after the date of sentencing. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3. He did not file a motion for extension of time. The appeal is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 2
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.
