Clinton Kilcrease v. State ( 2002 )

Clinton Kilcrease v. State

  IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-02-241-CR

     CLINTON KILCREASE,

                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                              Appellee

From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court # 9678-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury convicted Clinton Kilcrease of aggravated sexual assault. The court sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. Kilcrease appealed.

      Kilcrease has now filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) provides:

At any time before the appellate court's decision, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal if the party that appealed withdraws its notice of appeal—by filing a written withdrawal in duplicate with the appellate clerk, who must immediately send the duplicate copy to the trial court clerk. An appellant must personally sign the written withdrawal.

Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

      We have not issued a decision in this appeal. Kilcrease personally signed the motion. The Clerk of this Court has sent a duplicate copy to the trial court clerk. See id.; McClain v. State, 17 S.W.3d 310, 311 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, no pet.) (per curiam). Accordingly, Kilcrease’s appeal is dismissed.

                                                                   PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Gray

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 11, 2002

Do not publish

[CR25]

r a jurisdictional defect; that the substance of the appeal was raised and ruled on by pretrial motion; or that the trial court granted him permission to appeal. Thus, Appleton’s notice of appeal does not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3).

      Because Appleton’s notice of appeal does not comply with these requirements, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Okigbo v. State, 960 S.W.2d 923, 925 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Carothers v. State, 928 S.W.2d 315, 317 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1996, pet. ref’d)(both applying former rule 40(b)(1)). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                               PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Cummings, and

      Justice Vance

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 21, 1998

Do not publish