Court Opinion

ID: 3104442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:38:51.223347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:09.034593
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-10-00637-CR

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

ARTURO SAMUEL TREVINO & LEXINGTON
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D/B/A EL PADRINO
BAIL BONDS,                                                            Appellants,

                                         v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 404th District Court
                  of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes
                    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellants, Arturo Samuel Trevino & Lexington National Insurance Co. d/b/a El

Padrino Bail Bonds, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 404th District

Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 2010-01-27-G. Because this case is
a criminal matter, the Clerk of the Court has assigned it a “CR” designation.               However,

this appeal is governed by the same procedural rules which govern civil appeals. TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.44 (Vernon 1979).

       The parties to this appeal have filed a “Joint Motion to Dispose of Appeal” under

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(A). The parties request that this Court

vacate the trial court’s judgment without regards to the merits and render judgment in

accordance with the agreement of the parties.

       The Court has considered the motion and it is the Court’s opinion that the motion

should be granted in part and denied in part.1 Accordingly, without regard to the merits,

we vacate the judgment as to appellants and remand the case to the trial court for

rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B); 43.2(d).

                                                       PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the
23rd day of June, 2011.

       1
         Rule 42.1(a)(2) permits the Court to render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreements or to
vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in
accordance with the agreement; we cannot do both. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), (B).

                                                   2