Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2008

David Charles Fitts v. State

David Charles Fitts v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided September 10, 2008

David Charles Fitts v. State

Opinion

















In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana



______________________________


No. 06-08-00059-CR

______________________________




DAVID CHARLES FITTS, Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. 114-2295-07









Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss


MEMORANDUM OPINION


David Charles Fitts appeals from his conviction for the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. (1) He was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment and a fine of $10,000.00.

Fitts' notice of appeal was filed March 19, 2008, and the clerk's record was filed March 31, 2008. The reporter's record was due June 19, 2008, and has not been filed. Fitts is not indigent. Therefore, he is responsible for paying for, or making arrangements to pay for, preparation of the appellate record. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a), (b).

On July 18, 2008, we mailed a letter to Fitts' retained counsel, stating that, if we did not receive information showing that Fitts was making a substantial and tangible effort to prosecute the appeal by showing either a reasonable attempt to obtain a reporter's record or by filing a brief based solely on the clerk's record within ten days of the letter, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Fitts has not contacted this Court. We have also contacted the court reporter and have been informed that Fitts has not contacted her.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.4; Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd).





Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice



Date Submitted: August 14, 2008

Date Decided: August 15, 2008



Do Not Publish





OPINION



On August 15, 2008, this Court issued an opinion dismissing David Charles Fitts' appeal for want of prosecution. We have now received and considered the motion for rehearing, along with the attachments thereto.

Fitts contends in the motion for rehearing that he did not receive the letter from this Court mailed July 18, 2008, informing him that, if he did not respond within ten days of the date of the letter showing us that he had made a reasonable attempt to obtain a reporter's record, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Having received no response to that letter, we dismissed the appeal August 15.

This Court has now considered the motion for rehearing and the attachments thereto as a response to our July 18 letter. The attachments are letters detailing what was done regarding Fitts' obligation, as appellant, to obtain a reporter's record. Neither the motion nor the attached letters between Fitts' counsel and the court reporter, and from Fitts' counsel to Fitts, demonstrate that a "reasonable attempt" was made to secure the reporter's record. The last correspondence was from counsel to Fitts, was dated July 10, 2008, and requested a response from his client; this is the last attachment to the motion for rehearing. We can conclude only that a reasonable attempt was not made.

We overrule the motion for rehearing. Our dismissal stands.



Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice



Date: September 10, 2008

1. This case has been transferred to this Court as part of the Texas Supreme Court's docket equalization program.

Medium List 1"/>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                         In The

                                                Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

 

                                                ______________________________

 

                                                             No. 06-11-00025-CR

                                                ______________________________

 

 

 

                                           IN RE:  ZAKEE KALEEM ABDULLAH

 

 

                                                                                                  

 

                                                                                                                            

                                                     Original Mandamus Proceeding

 

                                                                                                  

 

 

 

 

                                          Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

                                              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

                                                                             

                                                                             


                                                     MEMORANDUM  OPINION

 

            Zakee Kaleem Abdullah has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks this Court to direct the Honorable Nancy Talley, Justice of the Peace for Bowie County, Texas, to lower bail. Abdullah states that he was arrested by warrant for theft and that when he appeared before Justice Talley, she set his bail at $50,000.00.  He also states that he presented various motions by mail for filing, but copies were not file marked and returned to him.  He asks this Court to order the Honorable Nancy Talley to perform a duty required by law:  to remove the excessive bail, and that we order the District Clerk of Bowie County and/or the Clerk of the Justice of the Peace Court to provide him with copies of the documents involved in the accusations against him, as well as copies of his own pleadings.

            This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a “judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district.”  Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004).  The respondents in this case do not fall within those categories.  Under the facts as stated by Abdullah, we, therefore, have no mandamus jurisdiction over the named respondents.

            We deny the petition.

 

 

                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice


Date Submitted:          January 25, 2011

Date Decided:             January 26, 2011

 

Do Not Publish

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