Frank Walter Staszewski v. State
Frank Walter Staszewski v. State
Opinion
NO. 07-08-0310-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
OCTOBER 15, 2008
______________________________
FRANK WALTER STASZEWSKI, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 2678-E/53,728-E; HONORABLE ABE LOPEZ, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Frank Walter Staszewski filed a notice of appeal from a default judgment entered against him on April 28, 2008. The clerk’s record was filed in this Court on August 21, 2008. No reporter’s record was made in this matter.
By letter of September 30, 2008, this Court reminded appellant that his appellate brief was due no later than Monday, September 22 and thus, was past due. The letter notified appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless his brief was filed, along with a motion for extension of time, by October 10, 2008. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6.
An appellate court may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution if an appellant fails to timely file a brief unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the failure. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). On its own motion, with ten days’ notice to the parties, an appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c). Here, the record reveals appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension by the date specified by the Court, despite notice that his failure to do so would subject the appeal to dismissal. We further find the Court has given the parties the required ten days’ notice.
Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).
James T. Campbell
Justice
Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
NO. 07-11-0073-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
APRIL 29, 2011
______________________________
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, APPELLANT
V.
SCOTT HARTWELL, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 193RD DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY;
NO. 09-14735-L; HONORABLE CARL GINSBERG, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before this Court is Ford Motor Company's Unopposed Amended Motion to Dismiss Appeal in which it represents it no longer wishes to pursue this appeal against Appellee, Scott Hartwell. Without passing on the merits of the case, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No agreement by the parties on costs having been presented in the motion, costs will be taxed against Appellant. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). Having dismissed the appeal at Appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.