Justia US Law Case Law Texas Case Law Texas Court of Appeals, Twelfth District Decisions 2009 Andevron Parchman v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County A legal sufficiency of the evidence review calls upon the reviewing court to view the relevant evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. . Judge Suzanne Smith. 1998), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals required that a habeas applicant demonstrate that he was harmed by a deficiency in the cumulation order. NO. Clerk Name: Lois Rogers. ch. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. There was no way of telling from the video whether Lackey was also in possession of the cocaine and that she removed it from her pocket. Officers did not see the bag when they put Appellant in the patrol car. 1985) and held that "complaints as to procedural irregularities in a condemnation case 'must be preserved at the trial level by motion, exception, objection, plea in abatement, or some other vehicle,'" and since the Holloways never objected nor called the alleged lack of proper notice to the trial court's attention they waived their right to complain on appeal that the county failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Open Meetings Act. 2d 560 (1979); Margraves v. State, 34 S.W.3d 912, 917 (Tex. In his first issue, Appellant complains that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support the verdict. Our duty is to apply the same as written without adding to, or taking away from the meaning of the precise language embodied in the statute. There is legally sufficient evidence to support the verdict that Appellant was in possession of the cocaine. 288 1, 1983 Tex.Gen Laws 1431, 1433. (lad) [Transferred from Texas Western on 7/30/2019.] The question of whether conduct of a governmental body constitutes substantial compliance with such notice provisions is a mixed question of law and fact and must be determined on a case-by-case analysis of the language of the statute and the evidence before the court. Smith County, Phone Number: 903-590-1640 The phone number for Smith County 7th District Court is 903-590-1660 and the fax number is 903-590-1661. ch. Bennie Saenz v. State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith Accordingly, we overrule Appellant's first issue. This website contains information collected from public and private resources. Every landowner could use the re-routed road free from obstruction or hindrance. He told officers that he was following Lackey home because of a burned out headlight. The August 24th order closed a segment of County Road 431. Crim. Appeal from the 7th District Court, Smith County, Donald Carroll, J. Gene Caldwell, Bain, Files, Allen Caldwell, Tyler, for appellees. Toyah ISD v. Pecos-Barstow ISD, supra. C-220425 TRIAL NO. 6705, which read: Acts 1884, 18th Leg. COLLEY, Justice. I would overrule points two, three, four and five. According to the state courts website, the presiding judge may be a "regular elected or retired district judge, a former judge with at least 12 years of service as a district judge, or a retired appellate judge with judicial experience on a district court."[4]. Judge Hayes testified that after-hours entry into the building by the public can be obtained through the Sheriff's office which is located in the basement of the courthouse. The officers searched Appellant's car and found shortened straws. However, the commissioners court does not possess the power or authority to take any action to obstruct Landowners' free and uninterrupted passage over, along and across said road or any segment thereof. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. If a commissioners court does not have authority to re-route a short segment of a road, when such action does not deny any landowner the same access for travel as before, then the statutes above quoted are meaningless. 367 1, 1975 Tex.Gen Laws 968 (present wording). One of the officers detected the odor of alcohol on Appellant, so he conducted sobriety tests. Judge Name: Judge Kerry L. Russell. Crim. Alex Dalton Ingram v. The State of TexasAppeal from 7th District Court 7th District Court in Tyler, TX - Court Information - County-Courthouse.com When a drug dog was called to the scene, he alerted on the driver's seat in Appellant's car, a place where Appellant had been sitting until a short time before the search. After Appellant was placed in the patrol car, he began making similar movements as those made by Lackey. 2000). More Information apply. Crim. Holly Leann Elliott v. The State of Texas Appeal from 7th District 12-22-00032-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS REGINALD WAYNE BIGGS, APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE 7TH V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Reginald Biggs appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. 162.243.84.187 Dinario Jones v. State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of If you would like to help it grow, please consider donating to Ballotpedia. The Amarillo court in Lipscomb held that notice of the meeting of the County Board of Trustees set for Tuesday, May 26, 1970, which was posted on Friday, May 22, 1970, inside the courthouse at about 5:00 p.m. constituted a substantial compliance with the notice requirements of the Open Meetings Act. We sustain Landowners' seventh point. 01 CO 3, 2002-Ohio-5035, 48 (On appeal, . In this direct attack on the orders of the commissioners court, Landowners seek to void the August 24th and August 31st orders of the commissioners court on the ground that the written notices required by TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. Note: All non-emergency offices are closed during Smith County holiday. Appellant Bennie Saenz was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine. Barron v. Director, TDCJ 6:2019cv00351 | US District Court for the Pay the filing fee and take the copies of the documents. Neither Compton v. Thacker, nor the Moore case are applicable to the facts presented here. 0
), The court in Common Cause further said, "We agree that the greater weight of Texas authority holds that only substantial compliance is required. This is not to say, however, that the commissioners court may not by appropriate orders, based on substantial evidence, reasonably supporting the same, discontinue county road 431 or otherwise alter or re-route said road, or any portion thereof agreeable to the provisions of the County Road and Bridge Act, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. below is accurate or complete. Please include what you were doing when this page came up and the Cloudflare Ray ID found at the bottom of this page. Andevron Parchman v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court District 7 is a district court in Smith County. In Ex parte San Migel, 973 S.W.2d 310 (Tex. 1932, holding approved), we have concluded that the order of the commissioners court closing the segment of the road was void. Crim. George Thornton, Joe Davenport and Glenn Ellerd, plaintiffs/appellants (Landowners), appeal from a take-nothing judgment rendered in a bench trial in their suit against Smith County, County Judge Bob Hayes, Smith County's four commissioners and Tyler Pipe Industries of Texas, Inc. (Tyler Pipe), defendants/appellees. 1st called session, p. 20, 1884 Tex.Gen Laws vol. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The court address is 100 N Broadway, #204, Tyler TX 75702. None of the information offered by this site can be used for assessing or evaluating a person's eligibility for employment, housing, insurance, credit, or for any other purpose covered under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 1996). 6252-17 (Vernon Supp. My brethren have held that the order of the commissioners court discontinuing the segment of the road was void. 201 0 obj
<>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<879144A5D11E954D810B1A0C214E2285>]/Index[183 26]/Info 182 0 R/Length 93/Prev 226509/Root 184 0 R/Size 209/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream
In the present case, the trial court stated in the judgment that the case was "to run consecutive with Cause Number 3382 out of Kleberg County." In pertinent part, the original version read: "Notice of a meeting must be posted for at least the three days preceding the day of the meeting." 7th Judicial District - KS Courts Chief Judge D. Scott Smith. The question on appeal was whether appellee produced sufficient summary judgment evidence to prove that notice of its two meetings were given as required by art. Tex. The majority opinion fails to distinguish the facts in the instant case. on reh'g); Ward v. State, 523 S.W.2d 681, 682 (Tex. APPELLANT . Texas Revised Civil Statutes art. ), the court applied the substantial compliance rule to the notice requirements of the Open Meetings Act as did that court in Santos v. Guerra, 570 S.W.2d 437, 439 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.). NO. For example, if you or your spouse would like to get back to using the maiden name, you will have to file an Order with a request to restore it. I would hold that the posting of the notice for 72 hours before the meeting of the Commissioners Court of Smith County, together with the freeholders' petition which was posted for twenty-one days in three public places, two in the vicinity of the road to be closed, was substantial compliance with the Open Meetings Act and not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. We strive to provide accurate information, however, Courtreference.com is not an official source of information for any court or court clerk. App. The effect of the Supreme Court opinion was that the question of compliance with the Open Meetings Act was not before the Court of Appeals in Holloway, but the court then affirmed the judgment. .courts-header { font-size:150%;background-color:#334aab;color:white;} We reverse the judgment below insofar as it denied Landowners the injunctive relief sought, and remand that portion of this cause with instructions that the trial court forthwith order the issuance of a permanent injunction enjoining Smith County from closing any portion of Jim Hogg Road (County Road 431) located between the south right-of-way line of County Road 471 and the north right-of-way line of County Road 492 (Ann Campbell Road), and enjoining Tyler Pipe Industries of Texas, Inc. from occupying or placing obstructions upon any portion of Jim Hogg Road located between the south right-of-way line of County Road 471 and the north right-of-way line of County Road 492 (Ann Campbell Road). *Please call to verify. County Directory | Smith County, TX Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 412 (Tex. There was no dispute that the notice was posted at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of the meeting. A drug dog was taken around Appellant's car and alerted on the driver's seat. App. The "Regular Agenda," item eight, on that notice reads: "Conduct public hearing on closing a portion of the Jim Hogg Road (County Rd. 227 1, 1969 Tex.Gen Laws 674, amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg. employee screening. On Tuesday, August 28, 1981, at 10:00 a.m. notice of the agenda of a special session of the Smith County Commissioners Court to be held on August 31, 1981, at 10:00 a.m. was posted on a bulletin board located in the hallway of the first floor of the courthouse. Court Name: 7th District Court. One of the officers testified that the straws were significant because they were often used to snort cocaine. On appeal, Appellant complains of legal and factual insufficiency, and a void cumulation order. This Texas-related article is a sprout; we plan on making it grow in the future. Id. Id. 393-395 of the Deed Records of Smith County, Texas. Court is held at Smith County Courthouse, 100 N Broadway. ch. 1996). From our reading of Compton, supra, as well as Moore v. Commissioners Court of McCulloch County, 239 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1932, writ ref'd), and Meyer v. Galveston H. S.A. Ry. The State of TexasAppeal from 7th District Court of Smith County Alex Dalton Ingram v. The State of TexasAppeal from 7th District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion ) Annotate this Case Download PDF Free Daily Summaries in Your Inbox Search this Case Although we acknowledge the differences between a habeas corpus proceeding and a regular appeal, we see no reason that a faulty cumulation order should not be subject to a demonstration of harm. See Hoitt v. State, 30 S.W.3d 670, 675-76 (Tex. art. John Sandoval v. The State of Texas Appeal from 7th District Court of StateCourts.org uses public and private sources of information to supply you with search 1975). Get a hearing date after a state-mandated 60-day waiting period. 7 Smith County Court at Law No. Appellant was placed under arrest and was put in the rear driver's side of the patrol car. Also, review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence does not involve any weighing of favorable and non-favorable evidence. Conducting a search on Recordsfinder.com is subject to our. The minutes of the Commissioners Court of the meeting of August 3, 1981, indicate that a request for a public hearing for the purpose of closing a portion of County Road # 431 as noted on attached plat was item 5 on the regular agenda. By clicking I Agree you consent to our Terms of Service, agree not to use the information provided by He spoke with police in a recorded proffer session on the condition that it be inadmissible except for purposes of impeachment. from Texas Tech University in 1980. Williams v. State, 675 S.W.2d 754, 763 (Tex. We hold that the commissioners court was bound to comply literally with the provisions of Section 3A(h). App. Banks v. State, 708 S.W.2d 460, 461 (Tex. Appellant was observed on the videotape moving about in the car. Appellant was in the other vehicle. Smith County Courthouse 100 N. Broadway, Room 203 Tyler, TX 75702 Phone: (903) 590-1640 Fax: (903) 590-1641 Dockets NOTE: Public access to Court calendars can be viewed at: Judicial Search Court Calendar 2023 Civil Trial Week Schedule 2023 Tax Trial Docket Smith County Local Rules of Civil Trial Forms Request for Media Coverage A Birth Certificate; A Death Certificate; A Marriage License . Texas judicial district 7 - Ballotpedia Otherwise, you will not be considered a resident, and the local court will not review your case. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court. Phone: 903-590-1660. In the original act, Section 3A(f) merely required, "Notice of a meeting must be posted for at least the three days preceding the day of the meeting."
Capricorn Woman Erogenous Zone,
Jerry Markbreit Giving Him The Business,
Articles OTHER