You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Marshall Scott Mills, AKA David Scott Mills, AKA David Lynn Bollinger v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-00-00262-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 14, 2000; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, has granted the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Marshall Scott Mills (also known as David Scott Mills and David Lynn Bollinger) against the State of Texas. The dismissal is in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). The case originated from the 22nd Judicial District Court in Hays County, overseen by Judge Charles R. Ramsay. The decision was made by Justices Jones, Kidd, and Yeakel, and the dismissal was officially filed on September 14, 2000. The ruling is not intended for publication.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a)

Application: The Texas Court of Appeals applied Rule 42.2(a) to grant the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant against the State of Texas.

Reasoning: The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, has granted the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Marshall Scott Mills (also known as David Scott Mills and David Lynn Bollinger) against the State of Texas. The dismissal is in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a).

Jurisdiction of the Texas Court of Appeals

Application: The Third District Court of Appeals in Austin exercised its jurisdiction to review the motion to dismiss the appeal originating from the 22nd Judicial District Court in Hays County.

Reasoning: The case originated from the 22nd Judicial District Court in Hays County, overseen by Judge Charles R. Ramsay.

Non-Publication of Judicial Decisions

Application: The court's decision to dismiss the appeal is noted as not intended for publication, indicating it is not to be used as precedent.

Reasoning: The ruling is not intended for publication.