George Alejos v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00109-CV
George Alejos, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas and VIA Metropolitan Transit Advanced Transportation District,
Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-004230, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION IN JUDGMENT APPEAL
On this date, we have overruled Alejos’s motion for rehearing concerning our
disposition of his First Bond Appeal (Cause No. 03-14-00139-CV), affirmed the district court’s
Second Order Setting Bond in Cause No. 03-14-00237-CV (the Second Bond Appeal),1 and ordered
that no motions for rehearing may be filed in the Second Bond Appeal.2 Consequently, because
Alejos has not complied with the Second Order Setting Bond within ten days after the date of that
order, we render judgment dismissing his Judgment Appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.3
1
Alejos v. State of Tex. & VIA Metro. Transit Advanced Transp. Dist., No. 03-14-00237-CV,
slip op. at 2 (Tex. App.—Austin May 15, 2014, no pet. h.) (mem. op.), available at
http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us.
2
Id. at 3.
3
See Alejos v. State of Tex. & VIA Metro. Transit Advanced Transp. Dist., — S.W.3d —,
Nos. 03-14-00109-CV & 03-14-00139-CV, 2014 WL 1349018, at *9 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 2,
2014, no pet. h.) (citing Tex. Gov’t Code § 1205.105(c); Buckholts Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Glaser,
Further, in light of the expedited nature of this proceeding, and because the parties’ briefing has
already exhaustively addressed the dispositive issues, we order that no motions for rehearing may
be filed in this cause.4
__________________________________________
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: May 15, 2014
632 S.W.2d 146, 150-51 (Tex. 1982); Hotze v. City of Houston, 339 S.W.3d 809, 816, 820
(Tex. App.—Austin 2011, no pet.)).
4
See Tex. R. App. P. 49.4.
2