Kenneth Wylie v. the State of Texas

NOS. 12-21-00129-CR 12-21-00130-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KENNETH WYLIE, § APPEAL FROM THE 4TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § RUSK COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On August 11, 2021, Kenneth Wylie, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal to challenge “the trial court’s entry of void nunc pro tunc judgment” in trial court cause numbers CR90-001 and CR90-002. However, a case search of the Sixth Court of Appeal’s website reflects that appeals from those two trial court cause numbers are already pending in that appellate court, having been filed on August 5. 1 See Goodman v. State, No. 07-07-00502-CR, 2008 WL 315710, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 5, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (taking judicial notice that appeal was currently pending in another appellate court and dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(g), (m) (West Supp. 2020) (both this Court’s district and that of the Sixth Court includes Rusk County). The notice of appeal reflects that Appellant is raising issues regarding the nunc pro tunc ruling in the Sixth Court.

1 The appeals in the Sixth Court are assigned cause numbers 06-21-0083-CR and 06-21-00084-CR.

Because Appellant already has appeals pending in another court, we lack jurisdiction over his appeals. 2 See Capehart v. State, 257 S.W.3d 814, 815 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.) (dismissing criminal appeal for want of jurisdiction; appellant had already appealed to another appellate court and could not invoke Sixth Court’s jurisdiction by filing a later notice of appeal directed to the Sixth Court); see also Caler v. State, No. 12-08-00266-CR, 2009 WL 1314176, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 13, 2009, no pet.) (same). Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Opinion delivered August 18, 2021. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

2 Were this an appeal in which notices were filed by two or more parties from a single judgment or order designating different appellate courts with jurisdiction of the appeal because the county in which the trial court sits is assigned to more than one appellate district, the appeals must be consolidated in one of the appellate courts. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 15.2, reprinted in TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. F app. (West 2013).

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 18, 2021

NO. 12-21-00129-CR

KENNETH WYLIE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 4th District Court of Rusk County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR90-001)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 18, 2021

NO. 12-21-00130-CR

KENNETH WYLIE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 4th District Court of Rusk County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR90-002)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.