Jack H. Meyer v. The State of Texas Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Angelina County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOS. 12-17-00077-CR 12-17-00078-CR 12-17-00079-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS JACK H. MEYER, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Jack H. Meyer, acting pro se, attempts to appeal his convictions for speeding in trial court cause number 16-1629, operating a motor vehicle without a license in trial court cause number 16-1630, and operating an unregistered motor vehicle in trial court cause number 16-1631, for which he received a fine of $95 in each case. Article 4.03 of the code of criminal procedure determines our jurisdiction in this matter. It provides as follows: The Courts of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of their respective districts in all criminal cases except those in which the death penalty has been assessed. This Article shall not be so construed as to embrace any case which has been appealed from any inferior court to the county court, the county criminal court, or county court at law, in which the fine imposed or affirmed by the county court, the county criminal court or county court at law does not exceed one hundred dollars, unless the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute or ordinance on which the conviction is based. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 4.03 (West 2005). Appellant appealed to the county court at law from a lower court. The county court at law imposed a fine that does not exceed one hundred dollars. Appellant does not complain that the statutes on which his convictions were based are unconstitutional. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 4.03, we lack jurisdiction over Appellant’s appeals and we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. Opinion delivered April 12, 2017. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT APRIL 12, 2017 NO. 12-17-00077-CR JACK H. MEYER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 16-1629) THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it 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. COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT APRIL 12, 2017 NO. 12-17-00078-CR JACK H. MEYER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 16-1630) THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it 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. COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT APRIL 12, 2017 NO. 12-17-00077-CR JACK H. MEYER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 16-1631) THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it 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.
