
NO. 07-06-0251-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

NOVEMBER 21, 2006
______________________________

THE CITY OF LEVELLAND,

									Appellant

V.

BILL AND NANCY CARR,

									Appellees
_________________________________



FROM THE 286th DISTRICT COURT OF HOCKLEY COUNTY;

NO. 05-09-20167; HON. HAROLD PHELAN, PRESIDING
_______________________________

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
 _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
	The City of Levelland moves to dismiss its interlocutory appeal.  Without passing
on the merits of the case, we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and dismiss the appeal.  Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's
request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

							Per Curiam


{
	margin-top: 0px;
	margin-bottom: 1px
}

span.WPFloatStyle
{
	visibility: hidden;
	position: absolute;
	left: 10px;
	right: 10px;
	background-color: rgb(255, 255, 225);
	border-width: 1px;
	border-style: solid;
	border-color: black;
	margin-top: 25px;
	padding: 6px;
	line-height: normal
}

span.WPNormal
{
	font-family: "Arial", sans-serif;
	font-size: 12pt;
	font-weight: normal;
	font-style: normal;
	font-variant: normal;
	text-align: left;
	text-decoration: none;
	color: black;
	vertical-align: middle;
	text-indent: 0in
}

body
{
	font-family: "Arial", sans-serif;
	font-size: 12pt;
	font-weight: normal;
	font-style: normal
}





NO. 07-07-0222-CR
                                                     NO. 07-07-0223-CR
                                                     NO. 07-07-0225-CR
                                                     NO. 07-07-0226-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

______________________________


LINDSEY FORD JR., APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

________________________________

FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NOS. 2006-413,878, 2006-413,889, 2006-413,895, and 2006-414,532;
 HONORABLE JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE
_______________________________


Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION


          Appellant, Lindsey Ford Jr., has filed a motion wherein he requests that this Court
grant him additional time to file a motion for rehearing in each of four appeals referenced
above.
  For the reasons stated, said motion is denied.
Discussion
          On June 24, 2008, this Court issued its opinion in No. 07-07-0222-CR, affirming
Appellant’s conviction for the offense of forgery.  At the same time, this Court issued its
opinion in No. 07-07-0223-CR, 07-07-0225-CR, and 07-07-0226-CR, affirming Appellant’s
three convictions for the offense of burglary of a habitation.  The judgment of this Court
was entered on the same day in each cause.  On August 13, 2008, Appellant, acting pro
se, filed his Motion for Extention (sic) of Time, requesting that this Court grant him
additional time to file a motion for rehearing.
          A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the court of appeals’
judgment or order is rendered.  Tex. R. App. P. 49.1.  A court of appeals may extend the
time for filing a motion if a party files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) no later than 15
days after the last date for filing the motion for rehearing.  Tex. R. App. P. 49.8.  A motion
complies with Rule 10.5(b) if it states (A) the deadline for filing the item in question; (B) the
length of extension sought; (C) the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an
extension; and (D) the number of previous extensions granted regarding the item in
question.  Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b).
          The judgment of this Court was entered on June 24, 2008; therefore, the deadline
for filing a motion for rehearing was July 9, 2008.  Appellant’s motion was filed on August
13, 2008, more than 15 days after the last date for filing the motion for rehearing.  Because
Appellant’s motion for extension of time was not timely filed, we need not address whether
the motion complied with the requirements of Rule 10.5(b).  
          Appellant’s motion for extension of time is denied.

                                                                           Patrick A. Pirtle 
                                                                                 Justice  

Do not publish.
