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.

Jarid Cole Bennett v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-18-00608-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 16, 2018; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Jarid Cole Bennett filed a motion to dismiss his appeal in the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, case number NO. 01-18-00608-CR, concerning the trial court case number 1515204D from the 372nd District Court of Tarrant County. The court found that the motion met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), and since no prior decision had been made, the court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. Additionally, any other pending motions were dismissed as moot. The panel included Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale, and the opinion is not intended for publication.

Legal Issues Addressed

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

Application: The appellant, Jarid Cole Bennett, filed a motion to dismiss his own appeal, which the court granted because it fulfilled the procedural requirements outlined in the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a).

Reasoning: The court found that the motion met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), and since no prior decision had been made, the court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

Effect of Mootness on Pending Motions

Application: Since the appeal was dismissed, any other motions that were pending in connection with the appeal were also dismissed because they were rendered irrelevant by the dismissal of the main appeal.

Reasoning: Additionally, any other pending motions were dismissed as moot.

Publication Status of Judicial Opinions

Application: The opinion delivered by the panel, consisting of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale, was designated as not intended for publication, indicating it is not to be used as precedent.

Reasoning: The panel included Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale, and the opinion is not intended for publication.