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.