Jacques E. Gilbert v. The State of Texas Appeal from 297th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-16-00278-CR NO. 02-16-00279-CR NO. 02-16-00280-CR NO. 02-16-00281-CR JACQUES E. GILBERT APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NOS. 1403025D, 1403729D, 1403731D, 1436579D ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Jacques E. Gilbert attempts to appeal his judgments of conviction in trial court cause numbers 1403025D (theft of property under $1,500 with two prior convictions), 1403729D (robbery causing bodily injury), 1403731D (organized retail theft, $1,500 to $20,000), and 1436579D (organized retail theft, 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. $1,500 to $20,000), offenses to which he pleaded guilty in exchange for five-year sentences of confinement in each case, set to run concurrently. On July 18, 2016, we notified Appellant that the trial court’s certifications of his right to appeal state that these are plea bargain cases and that he has no right of appeal and has waived the right of appeal. 25.2(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P. We informed Appellant that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeals filed with the court, on or before July 28, 2016, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeals, the appeals would be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 44.3. Appellant filed a motion to extend time to file his response to our dismissal letter, and we granted him until August 29, 2016. Appellant filed a pro se response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeals.2 Therefore, we dismiss the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f). /s/ Bonnie Sudderth BONNIE SUDDERTH JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Appellant’s appointed counsel also responded to our dismissal letter, stating that she had reviewed the record and applicable law, had found no grounds for continuing the appeals, and agreed that the appeals should be dismissed based on the trial court’s certifications. 2 2 DELIVERED: September 15, 2016 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.
