Opinion issued December 10, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00786-CV

———————————

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL, Appellant

V.

BRANCH BRINSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2006-02867

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an “Order of (Partial) Dismissal for Want 

of Prosecution,” a “Final Judgment,” and an “Order Sustaining a Contest” signed 

March 25, 2013 and May 7, 2013. Appellant, Artis Charles Harrell, filed his notice 

of restricted appeal on September 6, 2013.
2

Appellant’s notice of restricted appeal does not comply with the 

requirements for proceeding as a restricted appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(7). 

Specifically, the notice (1) does not “state that the appellant is a party affected by 

the trial court’s judgment but did not participate—either in person or through 

counsel—in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of;” (2) does not 

“state that the appellant did not timely file either a postjudgment motion, request 

for findings of fact and conclusions of law, or notice of appeal;” and (3) is not 

verified by appellant. Id. On October 31, 2013, this Court notified appellant of his 

failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1 and instructed 

appellant to file an amended notice of appeal within 10 days. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.1(g). Appellant was notified that failure to file an amended notice of appeal, 

which corrected the defects, would result in dismissal of his appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

In response, appellant attempted to file an amended notice of restricted 

appeal. However, appellant’s amended notice of restricted appeal still does not 

meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.1(d)(7).1

 

1 Additionally, appellant’s amended notice of appeal appears only to relate to 

appellant’s appeal of the May 7, 2013 “Order Sustaining a Contest.” Appellant 

has failed to amend his notice of restricted appeal for the “Order of (Partial) 

Dismissal for Want of Prosecution” and the “Final Judgment” signed March 25, 

2013.
3

Further, appellant’s deficient notice of restricted appeal reflects that 

appellant is attempting to appeal the “Order of (Partial) Dismissal for Want of 

Prosecution” and the “Final Judgment” signed March 25, 2013. An attempted 

appeal from these matters was dismissed by this Court on July 11, 2013 for 

nonpayment of all required fees. See Harrell v. Brinson, No. 01-13-00313-CV, 

2013 WL 3523775, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 11, 2013, no pet.). 

Appellant is not entitled to a second appeal. See Minnfee v. Proyor, No. 01-12-

00943-CV, 2013 WL 709254, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 26, 

2013, no pet.); Velasquez v. Lunsford, No. 14-99-00186-CV, 2000 WL 64115, at 

*1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 27, 2000, no pet.).

Finally, appellant’s deficient notice of restricted appeal also reflects that 

appellant is attempting to appeal an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of 

indigence signed on May 7, 2013. We may review a challenge to an order 

sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence only when it is made part of an 

already pending appeal from a final judgment or other appealable order. See 

Dorsett v. Archstone Memorial Heights, No. 01-12-00570-CV, 2012 WL 3234119, 

at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 9, 2012, no pet.); see also TEX. R. APP.

P. 20.1(j). The order appellant seeks to have reviewed was entered in connection 

with appellant’s previously dismissed appeal and was addressed by this Court in 

that case.
4

On October 31, 2013, the Court notified appellant of its intent to dismiss this 

appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating this 

court’s jurisdiction within 10 days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant has not 

filed an adequate response.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.