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, Fort Worth, addressed the appeal case number 02-12-00181-CR involving appellant Cougar Rand Kemppainen against the State of Texas. The court considered Kemppainen's "Motion To Dismiss Appeal," which was found to comply with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Since no decision had been rendered prior to the receipt of the motion, the court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal in accordance with the relevant procedural rules. The memorandum opinion and judgment were delivered by a panel consisting of Justices Walker, McCoy, and Meier on January 10, 2013. The opinion is designated as "not published" under Rule 47.2(b).

Legal Issues Addressed

Compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

Application: The appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal was found to comply with the procedural requirements, allowing the court to grant the motion.

Reasoning: The court considered Kemppainen's 'Motion To Dismiss Appeal,' which was found to comply with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Dismissal of Appeal Prior to Decision

Application: The court granted the appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal because no decision had been rendered before the motion was received.

Reasoning: Since no decision had been rendered prior to the receipt of the motion, the court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal in accordance with the relevant procedural rules.

Non-Publication of Judicial Opinions

Application: The opinion in this case was designated as 'not published' under the procedural rules, indicating it does not serve as precedent.

Reasoning: The opinion is designated as 'not published' under Rule 47.2(b).