Ex Parte:Donald Ray Biscamp Appeal from 3rd District Court of Anderson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-16-00242-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS § APPEAL FROM THE 3RD § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS EX PARTE: DONALD RAY BISCAMP MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Donald Ray Biscamp filed a motion for rehearing, which is overruled. However, we withdraw our September 21, 2016 opinion and substitute the following opinion in its place. Donald Ray Biscamp attempts to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for expunction. However, the clerk’s record in this case does not include a final judgment or other appealable order. Therefore, the record does not show that this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal. On September 2, 2016, this Court notified Biscamp of the defect. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2. Biscamp was further notified that his appeal would be dismissed if the information received in the appeal was not amended, on or before October 3, 2016, to show the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). The October 3 deadline has now passed, and we have not received a final judgment or other appealable order in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2, 42.3. Opinion delivered December 9, 2016. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT DECEMBER 9, 2016 NO. 12-16-00242-CV EX PARTE: DONALD RAY BISCAMP Appeal from the 3rd District Court of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DCCV16-171-3) 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., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, 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.
