NUMBER 13-24-00526-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF L.D.T. AND D.L.T., CHILDREN

ON APPEAL FROM THE 74TH DISTRICT COURT OF MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice West This appeal is before the Court on its own motion. Appellant Trekeisha Tinsley a/k/a Trekeisha Sherhea Tinsley filed a pro se notice of appeal from an order rendered in a suit involving the parent-child relationship. We dismiss the appeal.

On October 30, 2024, December 17, 2024, and March 13, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that her notice of appeal did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b), 9.5, 25.1(d)(1), (2), (4). On December 17, 2024, and again on March 13, 2025, the Clerk advised appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were not corrected within ten days. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).

Appellant did not respond to the Clerk’s notices or file a corrected notice of appeal.

On March 13, 2025, the Clerk also notified appellant that the clerk’s record in the above cause was due on November 18, 2024, and that the deputy district clerk, Jon Gimble, had notified the Court that appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. See id. R. 37.3(b). The Clerk advised appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant arranged to pay for the clerk’s record and provided proof of payment to this Court. See id.; Clinton v. Clinton, 198 S.W.3d 444, 444 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.). Appellant did not respond to the Clerk’s notice, indicate that she was entitled to proceed without payment, or make arrangements to secure the filing of the clerk’s record.

This Court has the authority to dismiss an appeal because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the Clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c); Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC, 521 S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.). We may also dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when the appellant has failed to pay or arranged to pay the clerk’s fee for preparation of the record unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c); In re T.L.R., 391 S.W.3d 669, 669 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the foregoing events, is of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. To date, appellant has failed to correct the defects in her notice of appeal. Further, the record does not reflect

that appellant has paid for the clerk’s record, arranged to pay for the clerk’s record, or that appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. 42.3(b), (c).

JON WEST Justice Delivered and filed on the 17th day of April, 2025.