Court Opinion

ID: 2861458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 21:30:20.234703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:37.867196
License: Public Domain

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="WordPerfect 9">
<TITLE></TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#551a8b" ALINK="#ff0000" BGCOLOR="#c0c0c0">

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG>TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</P>
<STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-9<A NAME="1">8</A>-00<A NAME="2">218</A>-CV</CENTER>
</STRONG>

<P><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</P>

<STRONG></STRONG><CENTER><A NAME="3">Gary Don Robinson</A>, Appellant</CENTER>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>v.</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER><A NAME="4">Town North Nissan Mitsubishi, General Manager Randy M. Ross</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><CENTER>and Joe D. West</A>, Appellees</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>
<SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF <A NAME="5">TRAVIS</A> COUNTY, 200TH<A NAME="6"></A> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. <A NAME="7">94-15318</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="8">MARGARET A. COOPER</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING </STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>

<STRONG>PER CURIAM</STRONG>

<P><STRONG>	</STRONG>This is an attempted appeal from an order of the trial court granting summary
judgment in favor of appellees Town North Nissan Mitsubishi, General Manager Randy M. Ross,
and Joe D. West.  On  December 13, 1994, appellant Gary Don Robinson filed suit for malicious
prosecution against appellees following his arrest and subsequent conviction for theft of a vehicle
from Town North.  The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment on November
14, 1997, and appellant attempted to appeal by filing a petition for writ of error in the trial court
on November 26, 1997.</P>

<P>	Restricted appeals have replaced appeals brought by writ of error to the court of
appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 30.  A restricted appeal is proper when brought by a party who did not
participate, either in person or through counsel, in the hearing that resulted in the judgment
complained of and who did not timely file a post-judgment motion or request for findings of fact
and conclusions of law, or a timely notice of appeal.  <EM>See</EM> <EM>Id</EM>.  A review of the record demonstrates
that appellant did participate in through pro se representation in the trial court proceedings that
resulted in the order of dismissal.  Because appellant has participated in the trial court
proceedings, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal
in this cause is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  <EM>See</EM> Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
Furthermore, all motions pending in this cause are dismissed as moot.</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>Before Justices Powers, Kidd and B. A. Smith</P>

<P>Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction</P>

<P>Filed:   May 29, 1998</P>

<P>Do Not Publish<SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular"></SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
</BODY>
</HTML>