eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2005-02

Lemuel Fothergil and J&L Bail Bonds v. State of Texas ( 2005 )


Menu:

  • NO. 07-05-0013-CV


    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


    AT AMARILLO


    PANEL B


    FEBRUARY 28, 2005



    ______________________________




    LEMUEL FOTHERGIL AND J & L BAIL BONDS, APPELLANT


    V.


    THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE




    _________________________________


    FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF OCHILTREE COUNTY;


    NO. 2384; HONORABLE KENNETH RAY DONAHUE, JUDGE


    _______________________________


    Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.

    MEMORANDUM OPINION

    On January 14, 2005, the clerk of this court received a copy of a Notice of Appeal filed on behalf of appellants Lemuel Fothergil and J & L Bail Bonds. By letter dated January 14, 2005, the clerk advised counsel for appellants that a filing fee had not been received, see Tex. R. App. P. 5. The clerk's letter likewise advised that failure to pay the filing fee may result in dismissal of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

    The filing fee has not been paid. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

    James T. Campbell

    Justice





    lished law bars us from considering the matter. According to Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-662 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), one cannot appeal issues related to the original plea hearing after his guilt has been adjudicated. Id. at 662; Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).

    Nor can one appeal the decision to adjudicate guilt. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004). Additionally, the scope of that rule encompasses error arising "in the adjudication of guilt process." Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Since the admissibility of the evidence considered by the trial court at the adjudication hearing is a matter arising in that process, we have no jurisdiction to consider it.

    Having no jurisdiction over either issue, we must dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Drew v. State, 942 S.W.2d 98, 99 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997, no pet.).

    James T. Campbell

    Justice





    Do not publish.