the City of Levelland v. Bill and Nancy Carr ( 2006 )

NO. 07-06-0251-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

NOVEMBER 21, 2006 ______________________________

THE CITY OF LEVELLAND,

Appellant

V.

BILL AND NANCY CARR,

Appellees

_________________________________

FROM THE 286^th DISTRICT COURT OF HOCKLEY COUNTY;

NO. 05-09-20167; HON. HAROLD PHELAN, PRESIDING _______________________________

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

The City of Levelland moves to dismiss its interlocutory appeal. Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam

{ margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1px } span.WPFloatStyle { visibility: hidden; position: absolute; left: 10px; right: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 225); border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: black; margin-top: 25px; padding: 6px; line-height: normal } span.WPNormal { font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-indent: 0in } body { font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal }

NO. 07-07-0222-CR

                                                     NO. 07-07-0223-CR

                                                     NO. 07-07-0225-CR

                                                     NO. 07-07-0226-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

______________________________

LINDSEY FORD JR., APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

________________________________

FROM THE 140^TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NOS. 2006-413,878, 2006-413,889, 2006-413,895, and 2006-414,532;

 HONORABLE JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION

          Appellant, Lindsey Ford Jr., has filed a motion wherein he requests that this Court grant him additional time to file a motion for rehearing in each of four appeals referenced above. For the reasons stated, said motion is denied.

Discussion

          On June 24, 2008, this Court issued its opinion in No. 07-07-0222-CR, affirming Appellant’s conviction for the offense of forgery. At the same time, this Court issued its opinion in No. 07-07-0223-CR, 07-07-0225-CR, and 07-07-0226-CR, affirming Appellant’s three convictions for the offense of burglary of a habitation. The judgment of this Court was entered on the same day in each cause. On August 13, 2008, Appellant, acting pro se, filed his Motion for Extention (sic) of Time, requesting that this Court grant him additional time to file a motion for rehearing.

          A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the court of appeals’ judgment or order is rendered. Tex. R. App. P. 49.1. A court of appeals may extend the time for filing a motion if a party files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last date for filing the motion for rehearing. Tex. R. App. P. 49.8. A motion complies with Rule 10.5(b) if it states (A) the deadline for filing the item in question; (B) the length of extension sought; (C) the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension; and (D) the number of previous extensions granted regarding the item in question. Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b).

          The judgment of this Court was entered on June 24, 2008; therefore, the deadline for filing a motion for rehearing was July 9, 2008. Appellant’s motion was filed on August 13, 2008, more than 15 days after the last date for filing the motion for rehearing. Because Appellant’s motion for extension of time was not timely filed, we need not address whether the motion complied with the requirements of Rule 10.5(b).

          Appellant’s motion for extension of time is denied.

                                                                           Patrick A. Pirtle

                                                                                 Justice

Do not publish.