Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2004

1996 Jaguar, Vin Sajhx17tc766857 v. State

1996 Jaguar, Vin Sajhx17tc766857 v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided December 30, 2004

1996 Jaguar, Vin Sajhx17tc766857 v. State

Opinion

 






NUMBER 13-03-146-CV


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_________________________________________________________


1996 JAGUAR, VIN# SAJHX174TC766857,                       Appellant,


v.


THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                      Appellee.

_________________________________________________________


On appeal from the 130th District Court

of Matagorda County, Texas.

_________________________________________________________


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam


         Appellant, Brandon Burnett, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 130th District Court of Matagorda County, Texas, in cause number 02-E-0625-C. The clerk’s record was filed on April 1, 2003. The reporter’s record was filed on May 9, 2003. Appellant’s brief was due on June 9, 2003. To date, no appellate brief has been received.

         When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, 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. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

         On June 9, 2004, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received from appellant. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

         The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s failure to file an appellate brief or to respond to this Court’s notice, and appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellee’s motion is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

                                                               PER CURIAM


Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 30th day of December, 2004.



Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.