Corey Darnell Webb v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOS. 12-12-00024-CR 12-12-00025-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS COREY DARNELL WEBB, APPELLANT § APPEALS FROM THE 7TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On January 13, 2012, this court notified Appellant, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1, that the notice of appeal in these cases is defective because it fails to include certain information required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)(4). Appellant was further notified that the appeals would be dismissed if a proper notice of appeal was not filed on or before February 13, 2012. In response to this court s notice, Appellant s counsel has provided a copy of an order of dismissal signed by the trial court in each trial court cause number. Counsel has further informed the court that Appellant has no objection to the dismissal of these appeals on that basis. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Opinion delivered February 15, 2012. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT FEBRUARY 15, 2012 NOS. 12-12-00024-CR 12-12-00025-CR COREY DARNELL WEBB, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeals from the 7th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.Nos. 007-1351-10; 007-1352-10) THESE CAUSES came to be heard on the appellate record filed herein; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that these appeals be, and the same are, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
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.
