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.

Cougar Rand Kemppainen v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-12-00181-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 9, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas addressed the appeal of Cougar Rand Kemppainen against the State of Texas. The appellant submitted a "Motion To Dismiss Appeal," which was found to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). As no prior decision had been rendered by the court before the motion was received, the court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal in accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and 43.2(f). The judgment was delivered by a panel consisting of Justices Walker, McCoy, and Meier, and the ruling was not published. The decision was finalized on January 10, 2013.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(f)

Application: The court dismissed the appeal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(f) since no prior decision had been rendered before the motion was received.

Reasoning: As no prior decision had been rendered by the court before the motion was received, the court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal in accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and 43.2(f).

Motion to Dismiss Appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a)

Application: The appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal was granted as it complied with the procedural requirements stipulated by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a).

Reasoning: The appellant submitted a 'Motion To Dismiss Appeal,' which was found to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a).

Panel Decision and Unpublished Rulings

Application: The decision was rendered by a panel of justices and was not published, highlighting procedural norms for certain appellate decisions.

Reasoning: The judgment was delivered by a panel consisting of Justices Walker, McCoy, and Meier, and the ruling was not published.