in Re Joseph Thomas Roberts

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Joseph Thomas Roberts Appellate case number: 01-21-00561-CV & 01-21-00562-CR Trial court case number: 21-DCR-0095 & 21-DCR-0097 Trial court: 344th District Court of Chambers County Relator, Joseph Thomas Roberts, filed a “Further Motion for Rehearing and en banc Reconsideration” of this Court’s November 2, 2021 opinion dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. Relator previously filed a motion for rehearing and en banc reconsideration on November 12, 2021. On December 7, 2021, we denied relator’s motion for rehearing. On December 14, 2021, the en banc Court unanimously denied relator’s motion for en banc reconsideration. Further motions for rehearing and en banc reconsideration are governed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 49. The rules provide that the filing of a further motion for rehearing or en banc reconsideration are limited to situations where, “[a]fter a court decides” a motion for rehearing or en banc reconsideration, “the court: (a) modifies its judgment; (b) vacates its judgment and renders a new judgment; or (c) issues a different opinion.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.4, 49.6. None of these conditions occurred when relator filed his initial motion for rehearing and en banc reconsideration, therefore, his “Further Motion for Rehearing and en banc Reconsideration” is a nullity. See Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex. 1990) (“A second motion for rehearing is not authorized by the rules and is a nullity. . .”); Rodriguez v. State, 28 S.W.3d 25, 26 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, order). Accordingly, it is ordered that relator’s “Further Motion for Rehearing and en banc Reconsideration” is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ April Farris Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Farris. Date: ___December 28, 2021______