Case Information

*1

103-15 Count of Clumuel Mettis The State offe of Criminal appeals VS JAN 30235 District Court of J. J. Mettis, Clerk of CHEMAL APPEALS JAN 222015 The Bifellast Jounz Tobson, who had refused of Remission to file this Subsctient Rention for disceetion of effects of Justice Ie or 12-24-2011 See Motive to the for 1 stry, Motive to Consolabite Mettis, Motive to extold the for Accesdeation whicbss and Motive to Reheale or not breeded Motive for leave to the biaet and otal document w fite 38.10 and Motive to file for a new Tep and the document behich or reduced for Whinted Conviel bense can indigert to mewe that not life sentence is Hebal and, void and also that I was deftined a fine and, in frettal that from Jubz misconbut for distisition Related to results or all other claims, or reduced for free Statement of Acts in buled 1-202 and fute 38.15 for Exidue of facts and contusion of law and Under Rechl Method 373 d. C. 83 (943) The Resecutive's Misconbuent has ay Afflentive durts to Tukn over exultated and informent evidence Admest Mone of disceetion See Rule 112.20 and fute 38.20 with Rule 122.21 See Rule 128.22 see also Rule 20.23 1- Remisdeation

*2 Rule 16.3 Where to File, Rule 68.4 Contents of Biting Rule 16.5 levith of Rottles and Rellis, Rule 16.6 Most Conlan Internats Retitans, Rule 16.7 Count of Merds bezk duties, Rule 16.8 Count of Cenned Merds bezk duties on Receit of Rottles of Rottles, Rule 16.9 Rellis, Rule 16.10 Amendment and Rule 11.11 Seline on State Revegetative Mowrert in Rule 9.5 for Remsen Granting Revius in Rule 16.3 and adcuments to Add decerses in Rule 17.9 for Tack Mill 49.3. The Moffat Tabsed McGue A Redжение of Newld Disoveed evidence demonstrates that but the violation of the United States Constitution, no Rational Jute would have anvicted me A Canst A 12 de Giece, minded when the head coust eeded in Fatinis to adent to the Jute the issue of whether I was Cuntit of second-deGree tetand munder Rattoe than 1st deGree munder when $m\ge$ Tual Counsel Riss Hevecks failed to object and Refuest for a lesse 边unded ofHeuse and Give an instancted videlist Hamst head coust firtuke to submit to the Jute's the issue ReGARDis the Assessmeit of Rynshmant within Raise of A decand de Gree tetand detweed 2-30 items and Also decordis $m\ge$ tual counsel Riss Hevecks fited to object arconst $m\ge$ tual convictions and ethereus offevies when the state offered into eaploye testme, that I had defuable Abused m3 3tel ducchted, while she had deen a child. Such testmats was not Reteant to m3 case and Abo, the Reundain effect of such testmant subsosvitatd and Reobative value, the Mapped ofverse was evtanced

*3 with one Male telans convicting deed-I-s) on (8-22-1996) the Jubal found me Gultis of the offense of Mulden see (8-11-294). The Enishment hersent uns held on 8-23-1995 see 8-11-3094 on the M3. The of the entsincerent Pherserh was not true see (8-11-334). The Jubal found me entsincerent Phererh and extherious offenses thue and assessed Enishment at life can live meant and a 4 to our time see (8-11-401). M3. that counsel was Horduda taried to Also object, without the Aftienative findyric use of the Enishment hersent of a derdis mentor, Nand3. A fircetion is Nsufficient, and Reciuest for the trant count and must al Censual Risents to consudel me, Ration to set asdeirand Ghursh on Enishmental delective indiefnant, when the state and m3. that counsel failed to submit Rallistic D. N/A. tinsellants test them the threde mentor would move at herejic that the state never moved that I hissed the threde mentor in that see (8-11-403). The state failed to move the element of the oftense, beyond a Rersemble doubt and I should have been convicted of a 2nd decree telans and m3. life, Sentence is 1lecat and, and, the Btellant Johnsow he Cue that I was denied a Fage and imbertal that them m3. that counsel was beilich victation, and 6th and 11th spendent Nichts. The their entsincerent Phererh as and etherious offenses are over to deacold the no tincer time to use

*4 As Panishment and Paral canat Muse there disergetan see C.C.E. Maticler 30,19 and Rule 44 a with Rule 464 (b) and Le 9 (d). The conviction while in then due to wefective assistance of counsel is Heuralist still available for Cuch use, but heler the in Hentor is patted to the attention of the Paral canat. The Mothat chibson object on the compunds of ettective assistance of counsel Mounst Pasa wharacenest Pharaonths and entrancous of teves and in Sutteret of not thent from the Mrak conviction, and entrancous of teves churc with a cold of the canot of poun Atmiennio the conviction, a conviction and with the athe Residenio, wefective assistance is constitutianth in then, The Mothat chibson so over that I was convicted what fulls on B-23-1885 and time Mative of What yous fited on B-24-1885 see (R-I-1e2), The Mothat chibson Now Paral and I am entitled to demand of not cause in order to decommoved the time Heural for Finio Metron to Maste What and bome to the out of time Metron see a New Paral for Retiet in Riea and Rute tice and ever, who so bove an ad section Mounst canot of Maste for the st. Interest of thes in Justices Mthennic not, Nukert Nethin wcteres as oian ce on 7-15-1992. When A Metron see a new Paral is not fited in a case, the Reputable Presuntion for Masse of Chmm of wefectiveness of counsel is that it was convicted but ne and Relected, and

*5 without doubt the hexanic on a Mated Salad. that is a political stage of the Procedinies. It is the wild castumist in the that court on certain makes that mass important a new trust, and to make a record on those matters the Mecturere Review, when counsel Norcross a defendant quimic A 20 days behead, the defendant is devied by constitutional rights, both the United States Suffern Court hake 59 and court of Council Mete have not wieded that with some of one who has not volded volution such as the Actual so constructive denial of counsel, At the Caminal, Procedinies, the Sucedinies, the Sucedinies, the Sucedinies, the Seel Velerian US State 9th Siv ad at St. W. the to tat it of the Retrospectation, Refute a shownic that counsels for respectation fell below in objective, standard of Reasong Memess, and that the deti- ment of the Sucedinies, the Sucedinies, the Sucedinies, the Sucedinies, the defense to the de, Give that there is a reasonable Probability that but for the Attached deti- ment, the Result of the heat and other would have been different. The Mated School and the Mso that the Mete Rivest that no head counsel has been Gravid that no head counsel has been Gravid, for a MERITER would have in ad- dent of Judson, MERITER to set aside voldet in Whellin us state 37 ret. 337-339-340 (1872-75) and in the interest of Justice in state us Covizates 855 Siv.

*6 2d. 682 tek. plan: 88.6832 , in 1660 of this 2012 discovered evidence, No Rational Jurors would have convicted ne. 703 nss. 1st degree munder and that I am infuntially Reshained, and continued. 3e3311 A Reysovable doubt, in detelminis the 1eGat SuEttcenc 2 ta Vieu the evidence in 1660 most Favorable to the 1000 c , to detemine whether Nis Rational Vuer of farts could have found the essential element of the 8 fverse Federal A Reasonable doubt see Jackson us UdGnia 113 105 307, 319, 2781, 2789, 121 L.Ed. 2d. 5ho 1971 and 888.15 state 206 0.10. 3d at 115 the 10thof 2thsess necuc that I an entitled to are Niteat as of 1660 as mateded the 1he 2 Ufene count of the United States see 1000 os 372 us 353,83, 10.22. 9 L.Ed. 2d 811 (1963) Further the 10 and 11th eneminent of the United States Constitutive matede the 10thof 2thsess Received, effective assistance of Cunvel on 10.22. 1st 1891 be dismised for failure to conlds with a state 10thate Rules, such Niteat must be remanded to the State Count of Niteats for a full

*7 ventricote of Selvace Rule 9.5 Rule a dusterson of Rules The 18th but inon 2, Emory wrote the statement made in this enended deflament of mobility to the court casts and initial final tees without the firstment of tees to the Section for uscietionice Review under Rule 28.1-28.11 is there not correct under the remitt of Peptum's see 28.11 of 12 the for purpose of manifest rule 410, 12, 3d, 79, 80 of Gowal and Caves of Records in Rule 9.3 (d) Rule 50, 1250 Rule 34.5 (d), 1400 St. 28.11 Rule 15, 3603 and Rule 52.7 for deJvice in teces Rule 12, 1920 and Penetits. 1-13-220 Rate

*8

Clerk Abel Acosta
Court of Criminal Appeals
P.O. Box 12308
Austin, TX 78711

The State of Texas Vs Jimmy Johnson, TDC# 727145

| § | In The 292nd Judicial | | :--: | :--: | | § | District Court of | | § | Dallas County, Tx | | § | PD# | | § | Trial Cause: F-55-72894-HV |

Amended Motion For Leave

to File Brief and Argument in Rule 38.1(h)

To The Honorable Judge of said court: The Appellant Jimmy Johnson, argue and request for permission to appeal and file this brief for an oral argument in rule 38.1(h) and under rule 68.11 and rule 9.5 service of the petition, the reply and any amendment or supplementation of a petition or reply must be made on the state prosecuting attorney at P.O. Box 12405, Austin, TX 78711 for reason for granting review under rule 66.3(a)-(f) and documents to aid decision in rule 66.4 or rule 49.9. The Appellant Johnson argue that I am indigent and request for appointment counsel to argue that my life sentence is illegal and void and also that I was defted a fair and impartial trial and request for want of jurisdiction against my subsequent petition for discretion review filed and pending in the Court of Criminal Appeals under rule 68.1 - 68.11 for disposition related to merits on a new trial motion and for a new

*9 punishment hearing and request for free statement of facts in rule 20.1 - 20.2 and rule 38.1(g) is unable to pay court costs in this affidavit and initial filing fee without prepayment of fees to present issues or points of error in rule 38.1(e), because the Court of Appeals 5th District of Dallas, Tx Justice David L. Bridges order that the court has before it appellant's on 12/2/2014 pro-se amended Motion For Leave to File For Rehearing which was construe as a Motion For Rehearing from dismissal of my appeal for want of jurisdiction as stated in the court opinion, appellant 11/12/2014 Amended notice of appeal was untimely as to the the 8/24/1995 sentence date and the court has no jurisdiction to grant an out of time appeal and my motion for a rehearing was denied on 12/15/2014 and the Appellant Johnson file his petition for discretionary to Court of Appeal 5th District of Dallas, Tx on 12/24/2014 to transfer to the Court of Criminal Appeals against summary of arguments, from cross points in rule 38.2(b), for a reply brief in rule 38.3, see breif limit of 90 pages in rules 38.4, see appendix in cases recorded electronically in the trial court in rule 38.5 for time to file brief in rule 38.6(a) with motion to extend time for reconsideration in rule 10.5(b) to amend and supplement in rule 38.7 for disposition related to merits on all other claims on failure of appellant to file brief in rule 38.8(b), 2, 3, 4 because breif are meant to aquaint the court with the issue in a case and to present argument that will enable the court to decide the case rule 38.9 for finding of facts and conclusion of law and under Brady material 373 U.S. 83(1963) The prosecuter's has an affirmative duty to turn over exculpatory and impeachment evidence against abuse

*10 of discretion in rule 44.2(b) on jury misconduct in rule 606(b) and rule 609(b) The appellant Johnson argue that a preponderance of newly discovered evidence demostrates that but for a violation of the United States Constitution, no rational juror would have convicted me against a lst degree murder when the trial court erred in failing to submit to the jury the sissue of whether I was guilty of second-degree felony murder rather than lst degree murder when my trial counsel Russ Hendrichs failed to object and request for a lesser indicted offense and give an instructed verdict against the trial court failure to submit tothe jury's the issue regarding the assessment of punishment within range of a second degree felony between 2-20 years and also secondly my trial counsel Russ Hendrichs failed to object against my prior convictions and extraneous offenses when the state offere into evidence testimony that I had sexually abused my step-daughter while she had been a child. Such testimony was not relevant to my case and also, the prejudicial effect of such testimony substantially and probative value, the primary offense was enhanced with one prior felony conviction, see (R-I-5) on 8/22/(1995) the jury found me guilty of the offense of murder, see (R.-VI-294). The punishment hearing was held on 8/23/1995 see R.VII-329 et.seq.). My plea to the enhancement paragraph was not true, see R.-VII-336). The jury found my enhancement paragraph and extraneous offenses true and assessed punishment at life confinement and a $\$10,000$ fine, see (R.VIII-401). My trial counsel Russ Hendrichs failed to also object against the affirmative finding use at the punishment hearing of a deadly weapon, namely a firearm is insufficient, and request for the

*11 trial court and Court of Criminal Appeals to consider my motion to set asside and quash an fundiimental defective indictment, when the state and my trial counsel failed to submit ballistic D.N.A. fingerpirnts test from the murder weapon would prove at hearing that the state never proved that I possed the murder weapon at trial, see (R.VIII-403). The state failed to prove the element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and I should have been convicted of a 2nd degree felony and my life setence is illegal and void. The appellant Johnson argue that I was denied a fair and impartial trial from my trial counsel Russ Hendrichs violating my 6th and 4th amendment rights. The prior enhancement paragraphs and extraneous offenses are over 10-years old are no longer true to use as punishment and trial court abuse their discretion under rule 404(b) and rule 609(b). The conviction while in firm due to ineffective assistance of counsel is facially still available for such use, but here the infirmity is called to the attention of the trial court. The appellant Johnson object on the grounds of effective assistance of counsel against prior enhancement paragraphs and extraneous offenses and in support of my brief from the prior convictions and extraneous offenses along with a copy of the court opinion affirming the conviction, a conviction had with the attorney's rendering ineffective assistance is constitutionally infirm. The appellant Johnson argue that I was convicted unlawfully on 8/23/1995 and timely notice of appeal was filed on 8/24/1995, see (R.I-62). Theappellant Johnson argue that I was appointed appellant counsel John H. Hagler, see Jack vs State, 64 S.W. 3d at 694 and I was not represented by him during the 30 days period in which to file a Motion For a

*12 New Trial and I am entitled to remand of my cause in order to recommence the time period for filing Motion to Abate Appeal and Leave to File out of Time Motion For a New Trial for relief in rule 2 and rule 43.6 and enter into evidence an Objection against Court of Appeals for the 5th District in Dallas, Tx Justices affirming my direct appeal in case# 05-95-01249-CR on 7/15/1997. When a motion for a new trial is not filed in a case, the rebuttable presumption for purpose of claim of ineffectiveness of counsel is that it was considered by me and rejected and without doubt the hearing on a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the proceedings. It is the only opportunity to the trial court certain matters that may warrant a new trial, and to make a record on those matters for appellate review. When caounsel abandons a defendant during a 30 days period, the defendant is denied his constitutional rights. Both the United States Supreme Court rule 59.1 or 59.2 and Court of Criminal Appeals have acknowledged that with some 6th Amendment violation such as the actual or constructive denial of counsel altogether at a critical stage of the criminal proceedings, prejudiced is presumed, request for an banc reconsideration in rule 41(c) to remand for a new punishment hearing see Velencia vs State, 946 S.W. 2d at 81 in reviewing attorneys assistance a court must examine the totality of the representation require a showing that counsels representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense to the degree that there is a reasonable probability that but for the attorney's deficiency, the result of my trial and appeal wouldhave been different. The appellant Johnson argue

*13 also that my appellate counsel John Hagler failed to raised that my trial counsel Russ Hendrichs did not request for a mistrial would have been grounds also for a Motion For a New Trial see Motion to File For a Stay, Motion to Consolidate Appeals and Motion For Rehearing against Motion in Arrest of Judgment and Motion to Set Asside Verdict in Mullun vs State, 37 Tex. 337, 339-340(1872-73). And in the interest of Justice in State vs Gonzales, 855 S.W. 2d. 692 Tex.Crim.App.(1993), in light of this newly discovered evidence, no rational juror would have convicted me against an 1st degree murder and that I am inlawfully restrained and confined beyond a reasonable doubt, in determining the legal sufficiency to view the evidence in light most favorable to the verdict, to determine whether any rational trier of facts could have found the essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, see Jackson vs Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, Sct. 2781, 2789, 61, L.Ed. 2d. 560(1979) to remand for a new trial and new punishment hearing under C.C.P. Article 37.07 2(b) and 3 with C.C.P. Article 44.29 on relief for an evidentiary hearing see rule 48.1, see Article 44.01(a)(2).

Certificate of Service Rule 9.5 Rule 2 Suspension of Rules The Appellant Jimmy Johnson verify the statement made in this Amended Affidavit of Inability to pay Court costs and Initial Filing Fees without prepayment of fees to file Motion For Leave to File Brief and For an oral Arguement in Rule 38.1(h) is true

*14 and correct under the penalty of per jury see 28 U.S.S. 1746 for purpose of Mailbox rule 4(c) 1, 2, 3, (d) For the original and copies of records in rule 9.3(b), rule 34.5(c), rule 34.6(c) (4) and rule 35.3(b)(3) for service in local rule 10, 11, 12(c).

*15

Clerk Abel Acosta
Court of Criminal Appeals
P.O. Box 12308
Austin, TX 78711

Amended Motion to File For a New Trial

in Rule 21.9(a)-(d)

To The Honorable Judge of said court: The Appellant Jimmy Johnson argue and request for permission to appeal and file this Motion For a New Trial for a subsequent Review to Remand for a new punishment hearing against my illegal life sentence against jury misconduct and denial of a fair and impartial trial, under rule 606(b) see Motion to File For A Stay, Motion to Consolidate Appeals, Motion to extend Time For Reconsideration in rule 10.5(b) and Motion For Rehearing under rule 68.11 and tule 9.5, service of the petition, the reply and any amendment or supplementation of a petition or reply must be made on the state prosecuting attorney, because the State must object to an amended motion to new trial if it is filed more than 30 days after the date of asentence was imposed or the trial court may grant it; see State vs Moore, 225 S.W. 3d. 556 Tex. CrimApp. (2007). A defendant unsworn declaration accompanying my motion fint use the phrases according to my brief and under

*16 the penalty of perjury are sufficent to support a Motion For a New Trail see Battm vs state, 219 S.W. 3d. 391 Tex.Crim.App. (2007) Unsworn declaration must meet the statutory requirement of Civil Practice and Remedies Codex 132.001 and on presenting motions a docket sheet entry without a signed order is sufficient to show presentment of a motion for a new trial filed the same day the defendant claims to have presented it to the trial, court see Stokes vs State, 277 S.W. 3d. 20 Tex.Crim.App. (2009) againsttype of evidence allowed at hearing when there is no per-se rule that a trial court must hear testimony whenever there is a factual dispute in affidavit on a Motion For a New Trial and a party ask for tesimony. A trial court abuses its discretion only in failing to hold a hearing when a defendent present a Motion For

New trial matter that may not be determine from the record, see Holden vs State, 201 S.W. 3d. 761 Tex.Crim.App. (2006)> On request for a hearing on a motion for new trial, is not absolute, see Rozell vs State, 176 S.W. 3d. 228, 230 Tex.Crim.App. (2005) and Reyes vs State, 849 S.W. 2d. 812 Tex.Crim.App. (1993). The defendent motion with supporting affidavit showing that error occured and present the motion to the trial couert, see Rozell, 176 S.W. 3d. at 230, merely filing a motion for a new trial does not constitute presentment under rule 21.6 see, Thompson vs State 2443 S.W. 3d. 774 Tex.App. Fort Worth 2007 Pet. Ref. (present mean delidering the motion to the court or bring the motion to court attention, see Baker vs State, 956 S.W. 2d. 19 Tex.Crim.App. (1997) When the defendant must adduce facts not in the record in order to present them on appeal, he must file a Motion For New Trial and obtain a hearing, see rule 21.2, rozell, this does not apply to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, see Robinson

*17 vs State, 16 S.W. 3d. 808 Tex.Crim.App. (2000). The defendant must obtain a hearing on the motion before the motion for new trial overruled by operation of law, see Roze11, Ryan vs State, 937 S.W. 2d. 93 Tex.App. Beaumont 1996 Pet. Refd. A trial court may not grant a motion for a new trial based on grounds not raised in the motion, see State vs Provost, 205 S.W. 3d. 561 Tex.App. Houston 14th Dist. 2006 No Pet. New trial based on ineffective assistance not available when not raised by defendant in my motion against unpreserved error when a trial judge may - but does not have to grant a new trial on the basis of unpreserved trial error, such as an unrecorded bench conference, if that error is sufficiently serious to affect the defendants substantial rights, see State vs Herndon, 215 S.W. 3d. 901 Tex.Crim.App. (2007) because the court reporter failed to transcribe a bench conference and defendant did not preserved error, against evidence allowed and the trial court can receive evidence in aMotion For New Trial by affivadit or otherwise, see Lopez vs State, 895 S.W. 2d. 392 Tex.App. Corpus Christi (1994) No Pet. The trial court must rule on, a Motion For New Trial within 75 days after imposing or suspending sentence in open court, see rule 21.8 granting a motion for a new trial must be accompanied by written order a docket entry does not constitute a written order, see State vs R1eehart, 971 S.W. 2d. at 542. A motion not ruled upon timely by written order will be deemed denied. A trial court does not have authority to grant a motion for a new trial on its own motion, see Harris vs State, 958 S.W. 2d. at 292. After 75 days period expires an order granting or denying a Motion For a New Trial become final and the trial court cannot rescind its order see Awade1kariem, 971 S.W. 2d. at 721. See rule 21.9 when a court

*18

must grant a new trial when it has found a meritious ground for new tiral, but a court must grant only a new trial on punishment when it has found a ground that affected only the assessment of punishment, because granting a new trial restores the case to its position befo re the former trial, including, at any party option arraignment or pretrial proceeding initiated by that party on granting a new trial on punishment restores the case to its position after the defendant was found guilty, unless the defendant, the state, and trial court all agree to a change, punishment in a new trial shall be assessed in accordance with the defendant original election under C.C.P. article 37.07 2(b) and 3 along with C.C.P. article 44.29 against a finding or verdict of guilt in the former trial must not be regarded as a presumption of guilt, nor may it be alluded to in the presence of the jury that hears the case on retrial of guilt. A finding of fact or an assessment of punishment in the former trial may not be alluded to in the presence of the jury that hears the case on retrial of punishment, and to redress my whole entire case to reverse and remand for a new punishment hearing

Chapter 132

Certificate of Service Rule 9.5 Rule 2 Suspension of Rules The Appellant, Jimmy Johnson, verify the statement made in this Amended Motion For Leave to File Affidavit to file Motion For a New Trial in Rule 21.9(a)-(d) of inability to pay court costs and initial filing fees without prepayment of fees is true and

*19 correct under the penalty of perjury see 28 U.S.C. 1746 for purpose of Mailbox rule 4(c)1,2,3,(d) for the original and copies of records in rule 9.3(b), rule 34.5(c), rule 34.6(c)(4), rule 35.5(b)(3) and rule 52.7 for service in local rule 10,11,12(c) and benefits.

*20

Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 18, 2014

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Ballas

No. 05-14-01453-CR

JIMMY CHARLES JOHNSON, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F95-72894-HV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers Opinion by Justice Bridges In 1995, Jimmy Johnson was convicted of murder. Sentence of life imprisonment and a $\$10,000$ fine was imposed in open court on August 24, 1995. Appellant's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Johnson v. State, No. 05-95-01249-CR, 1997 WL 393191 (Tex. App.-Dallas July 15, 1997, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). The Court now has before it appellant's November 12, 2014 "amended notice of appeal." In the notice of appeal, appellant does not reference any new appealable order entered by the trial court. Rather, he challenges his 1995 conviction. "Jurisdiction concerns the power of a court to hear and determine a case." Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The jurisdiction of an appellate court must be legally invoked, and, if not, the power of the court to act is as absent as if it did not exist. See id.

*21 at 523. Appellant's November 12, 2014 "amended notice of appeal" is untimely as to the August 24, 1995 sentencing date. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a); Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam).

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

| | /David L. Bridges/ | | :-- | :-- | | Do Not Publish | DAVID L. BRIDGES | | Tex. R. App. P. 47 | JUSTICE | | 141453 F. U05 | |

*22

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Eexas at Ballas JUDGMENT

JIMMY CHARLES JOHNSON, Appellant

No. 05-14-01453-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F95-72894-HV. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Justices Lang-Miers and Myers participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered November 18, 2014.