NO. 07-11-00311-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL B FEBRUARY 2, 2012

IN THE INTEREST OF B.N.D., A CHILD

FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; NO. 78,606-D; HONORABLE DO N R. EMERSON, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., a nd CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Following an order in su it to modify parent-child re lationship, appellant, Lindsey Nicole Day, timely filed a pro se notice of a ppeal. The clerk’s record was filed with this Court on October 6, 2011. The reporter reques ted an extension of time to file the reporter’s record on October 26, 2011, bec ause (1) Day had not requested preparation of the record, (2) Day had not paid or made arrangements to pay for the record, and (3) “The order was only a tempor ary and a motion for new trial granted – I provided these to
7 th COA.” 1 The reporter’s request for extension was granted. By letter dated October

1 Review of the clerk’s record reveals t hat the order appealed from was, in fact, a final order that was signed on July 8, 2011. Day’s motion for new trial was filed on August 10, 2011, which is outside of 30 days after the order was signed and, therefore, was untimely. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 329b(a). The trial court entered its order granting Day a new trial on August 16, 2011. Howeve r, because Day’s motion for new trial was2 28, 2011, Day was notified of this defect and given an opportunity to either have the record filed or to certify that the re cord had been requested and that arrangements had been made to pay for the record by November 28, 2011. This le tter warned Day that failure to comply with this deadline may result in a deadline being set for appellant’s brief in the absence of a reporter’s record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c). After Day failed to respond to this Court’s November 28 letter, the Court notified Day that her brief was due to be filed no later than January 5, 2012.
Having received no brief by this J anuary 5 deadline, on Januar y 17, this Court sent Day notice that her brief was past due. This notice specifical ly advised Day that, unless appellant’s brief was f iled with this Court on or bef ore January 27, this appeal would be subject to dismissal without further notice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). To this date, Day has not filed appellant ’s brief nor responded to any of this Court’s correspondence. As such, we now di smiss this appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Cle rk of this Court requiring a response or other action in a specified time. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).
Mackey K. Hancock Justice

untimely and the trial court di d not grant a new trial withi n 30 days after the judgment was signed, the trial court did not have plen ary power to grant th e new trial. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 329b(d), (f); In re Daredia , 317 S.W.3d 247, 250 (Tex. 2010). As a result, this explanation for the reporter’s request for extension of time to file the record was not accepted as presenting good ca use for the delay. However, Day’s failure to request preparation of the record and failure to pay for or make arrangements to pay for the record were accepted as good cause. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(b).