Kenneth Grubbs v. Joe Clair, D/B/A Sulphur Springs Transmission ( 2008 )

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00042-CV ______________________________



KENNETH GRUBBS, Appellant

V.

JOE CLAIR, D/B/A SULPHUR SPRINGS TRANSMISSION, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. CV37955

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 2, 2008, we mailed a letter to Kenneth Grubbs' counsel requesting that counsel show this Court how we had jurisdiction over this appeal regarding two potential defects: (1) the suit apparently began in small claims court and then was appealed to the county court at law, thereby depriving this Court of jurisdiction under Lister v. Walters, 247 S.W.3d 381 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2008, no pet.); and (2) the order appealed from appeared to be a nonappealable interlocutory order.

In that letter, we directed counsel to show this Court how we had jurisdiction and informed him that, if no response was received by June 12, 2008, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is now June 25, 2008, and no response has been received.

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: June 25, 2008

Date Decided: June 26, 2008

eal. Alexander's attorney has filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit, after a review of the record and the related law.

Counsel states that he has studied the record and finds no error preserved for appeal that could be successfully argued. The brief contains a professional evaluation of the record. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Alexander on October 6, 2008, informing Alexander of his right to examine the entire appellate record and to file a pro se response. Counsel simultaneously filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Alexander filed his pro se response December 12, 2008.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the trial court's judgment. ⁽²⁾  

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: January 2, 2009

Date Decided: January 9, 2009

Do Not Publish

1. The conviction having been in Smith County, this case was originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals and was then transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005).

2.

Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Alexander in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Alexander wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Alexander must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Alexander must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.