The State of Texas v. Dennis Davis Appeal from 167th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00616-CR NO. 03-15-00620-CR The State of Texas, Appellant v. Dennis Davis, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-DC-09-900185, HONORABLE P. DAVID WAHLBERG, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM The State of Texas filed a motion to consolidate its two appeals in the abovereferenced causes. In cause number 03-15-00616-CR, the State referenced its intent to appeal the district court’s September 10, 2015 findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Davis’s motion to set aside the indictment, which were attached to the notice of appeal.1 In cause number 03-15-00620-CR, the State appealed the district court’s September 9, 2015 order setting aside Davis’s indictment for violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Davis filed a motion to dismiss in both causes, contending that the court’s findings and conclusions after setting aside the indictment did not constitute an appealable order and that dismissal of the first appeal, not consolidation with the later-filed appeal, is appropriate. 1 That notice also made conflicting reference to the court’s order dismissing the indictment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.01 (listing orders from which State may appeal in criminal case). We agree. Accordingly, the Court denies the State’s motion to consolidate these appeals and grants in part Davis’s motions to dismiss these appeals. The State’s appeal in cause number 03-1500616-CR is dismissed, and its appeal in cause number 03-15-00620-CR remains pending.2 Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field 03-15-00616-CR Dismissed on Appellee’s Motion 03-15-00620-CR Remains pending Filed: November 19, 2015 Do Not Publish 2 Davis’s request to strike the second notice of appeal because it was not filed as an “amended” notice of appeal is denied. 2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.