Destec Properties Limited Partnership v. Freestone Central Appraisal District ( 1998 )

Destec Properties Limited Partnership v. Freestone Central Appraisal District, et al.

  IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-98-033-CV

     DESTEC PROPERTIES LIMITED

     PARTNERSHIP,

                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     FREESTONE CENTRAL APPRAISAL

     DISTRICT, ET AL.,

                                                                              Appellees

From the 87th District Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court # 92-373-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Destec Properties Limited Partnership (DPLP) brought suit against the Freestone Central Appraisal District (the “District”) and the Freestone County Appraisal Review Board (the “Board”) to resolve a dispute over the ownership and value, for ad valorem tax purposes, of lignite reserves in Freestone County. After a jury trial, judgment was rendered on the verdict in favor of DPLP and against the District and the Board. The District and the Board filed a notice of appeal seeking appellate review of the judgment entered against them. DPLP also seeks review of the jury’s determination of the ownership of the lignite reserves. On August 31, 1998, the District and the Board filed a motion requesting this court to dismiss its appeal against DPLP.

      In relevant portion, Rule 42.1(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

(a) The appellate court may dispose of an appeal as follows:

(2) in accordance with a motion of appellant to dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order; but no other party may be prevented from seeking any relief to which it would otherwise be entitled.

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2).

      The District and the Board request a dismissal of their appeal against DPLP because the parties have “resolved certain issues and desire to settle such issues as they relate to the District and the Board’s appeal.” Accordingly, the District and Board’s appeal is severed from this appeal and dismissed. Id. 42.1(b). DPLP’s appeal remains pending before this court.

                                                                                     PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Cummings, and

      Justice Vance

Dismissed in part on appellants’ motion

Opinion delivered and filed September 16, 1998

Do not publish

ow how I did it."

      B.K. Walter, a patrol officer, testified that he assisted Officer Garcia in following the blood trail. When Garcia entered the apartment, Walter watched the back of the apartment. After Garcia arrested Appellant, Walter entered the apartment and saw two new tires in the bathtub. They had blood on them. Walter recovered the tires, and the complainant identified them as his.

      Walter Parker, another patrol officer, testified that, when Appellant was arrested, he had a severe cut to his hand. His bandage and his bed were soaking in blood. Two bloody tires were in the bathtub.

      Earl Swindle, the owner of the Chevron station, testified that on April 1, 1993, he received an alarm call indicating that his station was being burglarized. The police were already there when Swindle arrived 15 minutes later. Four tires were missing from one of the tire racks. The police eventually brought four bloody tires to his station. Swindle recognized the tires because he had written out the tags that were on them. The station had closed that night between 8:30 and 9:00, and Swindle did not give Appellant permission to later enter the building.

Appellant was the only occupant of the apartment at the end of the blood trail that was bleeding. The blood trail labelled him as the possessor of the stolen tires, and consequently, the burglar. Any rational fact finder could have found him guilty.

      We find the evidence amply sufficient to sustain the conviction, and accordingly affirm the trial court's judgment.

                                                                               JOHN A. JAMES, JR.

                                                                               Justice (Retired)

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

      Justice Cummings, and

      Justice James (Retired)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed May 4, 1994

Do not publish