Philip J. Emerson, Jr. v. Ronald Wayne Ritchey--Appeal from County Court of Wood County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-12-00181-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS PHILIP J. EMERSON, JR., APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE V. § COUNTY COURT RONALD WAYNE RITCHEY, APPELLEE § WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On May 18, 2012, Appellant filed a notice of appeal seeking to challenge the trial court s Order Discharging Defendant issued on April 25, 2012. The order discharged Appellee from a peace bond pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 7.10. On May 18, 2012, this court notified Appellant, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.2, that the information received in this appeal does not contain a final judgment or other appealable order. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be dismissed if the information received in the appeal was not amended on or before June 18, 2012, to show the jurisdiction of this court. The deadline for amendment has passed, and Appellant has neither responded to the May 18, 2012 notice or otherwise shown the jurisdiction of this court. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Opinion delivered June 20, 2012. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) Accordingly, the appeal is COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JUNE 20, 2012 NO. 12-12-00181-CV PHILIP J. EMERSON, JR., Appellant V. RONALD WAYNE RITCHEY, Appellee Appeal from the County Court of Wood County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. PB-001-JP3) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; 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 this appeal be, and the same is, 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.
