Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2006

Ashley Danielle James v. Rayford B. Mitchell

Ashley Danielle James v. Rayford B. Mitchell
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided March 9, 2006

Ashley Danielle James v. Rayford B. Mitchell

Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                             NUMBER 13-05-645-CV

 

                         COURT OF APPEALS

 

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

 

ASHLEY DANIELLE JAMES,                                       Appellant,

 

                                           v.

 

RAYFORD B. MITCHELL,                                            Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

 

                  On appeal from the 319th District Court

                            of Nueces County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________

 

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

                Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

 


Appellant, ASHLEY DANIELLE JAMES, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 04-4557-G.  Judgment in this cause was signed on April 29, 2005.  No timely motion for new trial was filed.  Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on May 30, 2005, but was not filed until September 21, 2005. 

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done.  Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of this Court=s order, the appeal would be dismissed.  To date, no response has been received from appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to timely perfect her appeal, and appellant=s failure to respond to this Court=s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

 

 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 9th day of March, 2006.

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