Freebird Bail Bonds v. State ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •   

     

    IN THE

    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

     

    No. 10-11-00160-CR

     

    Freebird Bail Bonds,

                                                                                        Appellant

     v.

     

    The State of Texas,

                                                                                        Appellee

     

     

       


    From the County Court at Law No. 2

    McLennan County, Texas

    Trial Court No. 20101096CV2

     

    MEMORANDUM  Opinion

     


                In a joint motion by Appellant, Davie C. Westmoreland, d/b/a Freebird Bail Bonds, as agent for Allegheny Casualty Co., surety, and Appellee, the State of Texas, the parties informed the Court that they have entered into an agreement to resolve this appeal. Based on that agreement, the parties jointly request this Court to reverse the judgment entered by the trial court in favor of the State and render judgment against “surety, Davie C. Westmoreland as agent for International Fidelity Insurance Company, in the amount of $147.”  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 22.125 (Vernon 2009).  The joint motion states that it reflects the parties’ agreement that the trial court’s judgment was in error and reversal is required.

                Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment against surety, Davie C. Westmoreland as agent for International Fidelity Insurance Company, in the amount of $147, in accordance with the parties’ agreement.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A); 43.2(c).

     

    REX D. DAVIS

    Justice

     

    Before Chief Justice Gray,

    Justice Davis, and

    Justice Scoggins

    Reversed and rendered

    Opinion delivered and filed July 27, 2011

    Do not publish

    [CV06]

     

    om Brooks since we docketed this appeal on August 7, 2002. Under these circumstances, we conclude this appeal was not taken with the intention of pursuing it to completion, but instead was taken for the purposes of delay. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, under our inherent authority, for want of prosecution. Id.

     

                                                                       PER CURIAM


    Before Chief Justice Davis,

          Justice Vance, and

          Justice Gray

    Appeal dismissed

    Opinion delivered and filed February 5, 2003

    Do not publish

    [CR25]

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-11-00160-CR

Filed Date: 7/27/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015