Court Opinion

ID: 2921240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:19:45.608715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:06.769996
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-03-146-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
_________________________________________________________

1996 JAGUAR, VIN# SAJHX174TC766857,                       Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                      Appellee.
_________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 130th District Court
of Matagorda County, Texas.
_________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Appellant, Brandon Burnett, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 
 130th District Court of Matagorda County, Texas, in cause number 02-E-0625-C. 
The clerk’s record was filed on April 1, 2003.  The reporter’s record was filed on May
9, 2003.   Appellant’s brief was due on June 9, 2003.  To date, no appellate brief has
been received.
         When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court
may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably
explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure
to timely file a brief.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).
         On June 9, 2004, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject
to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).  Appellant was given ten days to
explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief.  To date, no
response has been received from appellant.  Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal for want of prosecution.
         The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellant’s failure to file an appellate brief or to respond to this Court’s notice, and
appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should be
dismissed for want of prosecution.  Appellee’s motion is GRANTED, and the appeal is
hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.
                                                               PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 30th day of December, 2004.