JAMES JAMAR SELBY v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 156th District Court of Bee County

Annotate this Case
/**/

NUMBERS

13-06-101-CR

13-06-102-CR

13-06-103-CR

13-06-104-CR

 

COURT OF APPEALS

 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_________________________________________________________ ___

 

JAMES JAMAR SELBY, Appellant,

 

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

________________________________________________________ ____

 

On appeal from the 156th District Court

of Bee County, Texas.

____________________________________________________ ________

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Ya ez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

 

Appellant, JAMES JAMAR SELBY, attempts to appeal his convictions for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. The trial court has certified that these are plea bargain cases, and the defendant has NO right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On March 7, 2006, this Court notified appellant s counsel of the trial court s certifications and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certifications.

On August 4, 2006, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel s response does not establish (1) that the certifications currently on file with this Court are incorrect or (2) that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if the trial court s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); see Tex. R. App. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

 

PER CURIAM

 

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 28th day of September, 2006.

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.