Brandi Rhnee Shelton v. The State of Texas Appeal from 163rd District Court of Orange County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-23-00121-CR __________________ BRANDI RHNEE SHELTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 163rd District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. B230038-R __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On April 20, 2023, Brandi Rhnee Shelton filed a notice of appeal in which she gave this Court notice of her intent to appeal from a ruling from the 163rd District Court of Orange County denying her petition for habeas relief. Her notice of appeal failed to state whether the trial court had signed a written order denying her petition and failed to state the date on which the order (if there was one) was signed. On May 4, 2023, we notified the parties that it appeared no appealable order had been signed in the case. We also notified the parties and the trial court that we 1 had not received a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal. We warned the parties that unless our jurisdiction was established over Shelton’s appeal by May 19, the appeal would be dismissed without further notice. Subsequently, neither party filed responded to our notice. Thus, there is nothing in our record to explain how this Court has jurisdiction over Shelton’s appeal. We have not neither received a copy of an order denying Shelton’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, nor have we received a certification that shows Shelton has a right to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). APPEAL DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Submitted on June 20, 2023 Opinion Delivered June 21, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ. 2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.
