Bob Harold Leach v. State

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-03-00214-CR

______________________________

BOB HAROLD LEACH, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

                                              

On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17,104-2002

---

                                                 

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Bob Harold Leach pled guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery and asked the trial court to assess punishment. Leach had no negotiated plea agreement with the State. The trial court assessed Leach's punishment at imprisonment for life. In a single issue on appeal, Leach contends the State failed to provide adequate notice of its intent to introduce evidence of an extraneous crime or bad act, and, accordingly, the trial court erred by admitting evidence of that extraneous offense in violation of Article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07 (Vernon Supp. 2004).

            The issue presented in this case is the same as that presented in a companion appeal, Leach v. State, No. 06-03-00211-CR. For the reasons stated in our opinion issued today in that case, we likewise affirm the trial court's judgment in this case.

 

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice

Date Submitted:          July 15, 2004

Date Decided:             July 21, 2004

Do Not Publish

List"/>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In The

  Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

 

                                                ______________________________

 

                                                             No. 06-12-00011-CV

                                                ______________________________

 

 

 

                                                  IN RE:  KEITH RUSSELL JUDD

 

 

                                                                                                 Â

 

                                                                                                                           Â

                                                     Original Mandamus Proceeding

 

                                                                                                 Â

 

 

 

 

                                          Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

                                              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

                                                                             

                                                                             

                                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

            Keith Russell Judd has petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. Judd would have us compel the trial court to issue a default judgment on Judd’s petition for divorce.  We deny Judd’s requested relief.

            Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law.  Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding).  It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief.  Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198–99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3.

            Judd has provided this Court with no documents supporting his request.  While he has attached a noncertified copy of the officer’s return indicating service of process was delivered to the respondent, he has neither provided a certified copy of the motion for default judgment Judd claims to have filed in the trial court, nor of any other filings in the trial court.^[1] 

            We find Judd has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief.  We, therefore, deny his petition.

 

 

 

                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice

 

Date Submitted:          January 23, 2012

Date Decided:             January 24, 2012

 

---

^[1]This Court denied a similar request for mandamus relief requested by Judd last year.  In re Judd, 06-11-00035-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2501 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 5, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).