Michael Wade Parrett v. The State of TexasAppeal from 390th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00273-CR Michael Wade Parrett, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-DC-01-100132, HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION In the above cause, appellant Michael Wade Parrett has filed a pro se notice of appeal from the district court s 2006 judgment adjudicating him guilty of the felony offense of injury to a child. He has also filed with this Court a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion for preparation of the appellate record. However, this Court has already affirmed the 2006 judgment in an earlier appeal filed by Parrett, who at the time was represented by appointed counsel, and mandate has long since issued.1 We do not have jurisdiction to consider subsequent appeals from 1 See Parrett v. State, No. 03-06-00591-CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 9367 (Tex. App. Austin Nov. 27, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)). that same judgment of conviction.2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismiss Parrett s motions as moot. ___________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: May 30, 2014 Do Not Publish 2 See Hines v. State, 70 S.W. 955 (Tex. Crim. App. 1903) ([O]nly one appeal can be made from a verdict and judgment of conviction in any case. ); McDonald v. State, 401 S.W.3d 360, 36163 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2013, pet. ref d) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction subsequent appeal of conviction that had previously been affirmed); see also Coleman v. State, No. 03-11-00648-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9653, at *1-2 (Tex. App. Austin Dec. 8, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same). 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.