Court Opinion

ID: 9409709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 08:07:24.571413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:52.806718
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                  No. 06-23-00042-CV

            MARCUS Q. BUTLER, Appellant

                            V.

 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 12th District Court
                Madison County, Texas
               Trial Court No. 18-16128

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
       Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Appellant Marcus Q. Butler filed a timely pro se notice of appeal on April 24, 2023.1

The clerk’s record was filed on April 28, 2023. The original deadline for Butler’s appellate brief

was May 30, 2023. On Butler’s motion, we extended the briefing deadline to June 29, 2023.

        On May 24, 2023, we received a document that purported to be Butler’s appellate brief.

On that same date, we sent Butler a letter explaining that, for numerous reasons, the document

we received was inadequate to serve as a brief because it did not meet the requirements of Rule

38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. In our letter, we

provided Butler with a detailed explanation of why the document he provided to this Court failed

to comply with Rule 38.1. We informed Butler that if he did not file a brief that complied with

Rule 38.1 by June 29, 2023, this Court could dismiss the appeal. While Butler did file another

document purporting to be his brief, that document, like the first, was inadequate to serve as a

brief under the requirements of Rule 38.1. As a result, Butler’s appeal is ripe for dismissal.2

1
 Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme
Court pursuant to Section 73.001 of the Texas Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We are
unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant
issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.

2
 Having provided Butler with ample opportunity to file a proper brief in this matter, we are disinclined to provide
Butler with further direction on how to file a brief that complies with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Moreover, we do not have the opposing party’s brief and, therefore, cannot affirm upon that brief
without examining the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(3).
                                                        2
       Pursuant to Rules 38.8 and 42.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss

this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8, 42.3; see also Running v. City of

Athens, No. 12-18-00047-CV, 2018 WL 2326775, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler, May 23, 2018, no

pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.).

                                            Charles van Cleef
                                            Justice

Date Submitted:       July 13, 2023
Date Decided:         July 14, 2023

                                               3