Charles Dewayne Stephen v. State of Texas--Appeal from 251st District Court of Randall County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-10-00494-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
APRIL 13, 2011
CHARLES DEWAYNE STEPHEN, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;
NO. 18,176-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, JUDGE
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On December 16, 2010, this Court addressed a document entitled “Notice of
Appeal” that was filed by Stephen in this cause number. Stephen’s notice of appeal
sought to challenge the trial court’s Order to Withdraw Inmate Funds. After reviewing
the notice of appeal as well as the clerk’s record, this Court construed Stephen’s notice
of appeal to actually be a motion to rescind the withdrawal notification that was
mistakenly filed in this Court rather than in the trial court. Stephen v. State, No. 07-100494-CV, 2010 Tex.App. LEXIS 10040, at *9 (Tex.App.—Amarillo Dec. 16, 2010, no
pet.). As a result of this construction, we abated the appeal for 90 days and remanded
the case to the trial court to allow the trial court to rule on Stephen’s pending motion to
rescind the withdrawal notification. Id. at *9-*10. After expiration of the abatement
period, this case was reinstated on April 11, 2011.
Upon reinstatement, however, it appears that the trial court has not ruled on
Stephen’s pending motion to rescind the withdrawal notification. Further, the record
does not reflect that Stephen has asserted that the trial court’s failure to rule on this
pending motion within the 90 days that this appeal was abated is unreasonable. As
such, we conclude that Stephen’s “notice of appeal” was prematurely filed and does not
seek appeal from a final, appealable order. See Williams v. State, 322 S.W.3d 301,
303-04 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2010, no pet.). Consequently, we now dismiss this appeal
for want of jurisdiction.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
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.