IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-03-277-CV

EX PARTE R.J. LAMAR DICKERSON

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 1995-117-J

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                                

      The juvenile court signed an order waiving its jurisdiction over the person of R.J. Lamar Dickerson and transferring him to a district court to be tried as an adult on September 5, 1995. Dickerson sought to appeal this order by notice of appeal filed on September 26, 2002. We dismissed this appeal as untimely in an unpublished opinion dated December 31, 2002. See In re Dickerson, No. 10-02-262-CV (Tex. App.—Waco Dec. 31, 2002, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication).

      Dickerson filed a habeas application with the juvenile court on June 4, 2003 seeking an out-of-time appeal. The juvenile court denied the habeas application by order signed on June 5. Dickerson filed a notice of appeal on June 26. The clerk’s record was filed on August 27. Because no reporter’s record was made, Dickerson’s brief was due on September 26. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). To date, no appellant’s brief has been filed.

      Appellate Rule 38.8(a)(1) provides that if an appellant fails to timely file a brief, the Court may:

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief.

Id. 38.8(a)(1).

      The Clerk of this Court sent the following notice to Dickerson on October 9, 2003:

Pursuant to Rules 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, you are notified that the Court may dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days of this letter, the appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal files with this court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.

The Court has received no response. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. 38.8(a)(1).

                                                                   PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

      Justice Vance, and

      Judge Allen (Sitting by Assignment)

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed December 31, 2003

[CV06]

lland, “Man, let’s go.” Holland replied “I ain’t going nowhere.  I didn’t do nothing.”  Monroe then fled the scene.

            Considering all of the evidence—including the accomplice witness’ testimony and the corroborating evidence—the jury could rationally have found Holland guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to sustain the verdict.

CONCLUSION

          Having overruled the issues, we affirm the judgment.

 

 

BILL VANCE

Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed July 6, 2005

Do not publish

[CRPM]