State v. Brenda Sue Telles ( 2006 )

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-05-00101-CR through 10-05-00117-CR

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

Rebekah Faith Stanley, ET AL.

                                                                      Appellees

From the County Court at Law

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2004-3921-CR1 through 2004-3933-CR1

and Nos. 2004-3935-CR1 through 2004-3938-CR1

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

          The State has filed motions to dismiss these seventeen appeals under Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a).  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a); McClain v. State, 17 S.W.3d 310, 311 (Tex. App.CWaco 2000, no pet.) (per curiam).  We have not issued decisions in these appeals since the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded them to this Court for further proceedings.  See State v. Stanley, No. PD-1393-05, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1816 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 20, 2006).  The Clerk of this Court has sent duplicate copies of the motions to the trial court clerk.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a); McClain, 17 S.W.3d at 311.  None of the Appellees has filed a response.  Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 1, 2006

Do not publish

[CR25]

iled in the district court by DPLP against the Freestone County Appraisal District and Review Board. However, UFI filed no pleading seeking any relief against the taxing authorities or against DPLP. Although the taxing authorities moved to join UFI in district court, they have filed no pleading seeking relief against UFI. UFI's motion for partial summary judgment against the Freestone County Appraisal District and Review Board was denied and UFI's claim against the appraisal district and review board was severed and given a new cause number. Thus, UFI ceased to be a party to this suit. Since UFI is not a party, it lacks standing to appeal the decision below. "Only parties of record may exercise a right of appeal." Gunn v. Cavanaugh, 391 S.W.2d 723, 724-25 (Tex. 1965).

      UFI has asserted in this appeal only that in the event DPLP is successful in challenging the appraisal district's assessment, the district is likely to attempt to assess the ad valorem taxes at issue to UFI. The appeal, however, concerns whether the district court properly declared that a DPLP interest is not taxable for ad valorem purposes; it does not involve the nature or taxability of property owned by UFI or any other property owner or potential taxpayer. UFI is not the owner of the property that is the subject of the appeal. UFI was not assessed as the property owner. UFI did not comply with any administrative prerequisites for maintaining a tax appeal. UFI has no standing to participate as either an appellant or appellee in this cause.

      UFI's appeal is dismissed for lack of standing and for lack of jurisdiction. The remaining parties are hereby realigned to reflect the Freestone County Appraisal District and the Freestone County Review Board as appellants and DPLP as appellee.

                                                                               PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

      Justice Cummings, and

      Justice Vance

      Dismissed

      Opinion delivered and filed April 6, 1994

      Do not publish

[WITHDRAWN & REISSUED 5-18-94]