ANTHONY SPENCER v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County (per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NUMBER 13-11-00567-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ ANTHONY SPENCER, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Anthony Spencer, pro se, filed a notice of appeal on August 23, 2011, and September 1, 2011, from an order granting the State s application for a writ of procedendo on April 29, 2011. On September 8, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order, that the appeal had not been timely perfected, and requested correction of these defects within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant responded that the appeal is timely and that the writ of procedendo was a final judgment. A defendant may appeal to a court of appeals if he is convicted in a municipal court of record only if the fine assessed against the defendant [in municipal court] exceeds $100 and if the judgment is affirmed by the county court. TEX. GOV T CODE ANN. § 30.00027(a) (Vernon 2004). In this case the order of the county court was that the appeal be abated, dismissed, and remanded to the municipal court. It, therefore, appears that because the judgment was not affirmed by the trial court, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the statutory requirements of Section 30.00027(a) of the Texas Government Code have not been satisfied. The Court is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 29th day of December, 2011. 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.