In Re: Jeremie Glen Tennison Appeal from 420th District Court of Nacogdoches County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-16-00270-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § JEREMIE GLEN TENNISON, § RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relator Jeremie Glen Tennison is charged with evading arrest. He waived his right to a jury trial, and the case is set for a bench trial on September 28, 2016. On August 23, 2016, Relator filed a motion to withdraw his waiver of jury trial and requested a pretrial hearing on the motion. According to Relator, the court coordinator notified his attorney that the matter would be considered on the day of trial. Relator seeks mandamus relief from the trial court’s refusal to hold a pretrial hearing before September 28, 2016. He also requested an emergency stay of the bench trial, which we denied. After considering Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, the Court is of the opinion that he has not shown he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), (d). Opinion delivered September 30, 2016. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 NO. 12-16-00270-CR JEREMIE GLEN TENNISON, Relator V. HON. EDWIN A. KLEIN, Respondent Appeal from the 420th District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1421200) ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by JEREMIE GLEN TENNISON, who is the relator in Cause No. F1421200, pending on the docket of the 420th Judicial District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on September 26, 2016, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that a writ of mandamus should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby DENIED. 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.
