Court Opinion

ID: 2894584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 23:03:09.777925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:56.503973
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-05-0306-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JANUARY 17, 2006

______________________________

LEROY L. HORTON, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2000-434070; HONORABLE JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
	Pending before this Court is appellant Leroy L. Horton's motion to dismiss his
appeal.  Pursuant to Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion
is signed by appellant.  No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant
the motion.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue
forthwith.
	Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
						Don H. Reavis
						     Justice

Do not publish.

t-family: 'Arial', sans-serif">FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 093372-00-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE
_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
          On February 24, 2009, the clerk of this court received a copy of a “Request to the
[trial] court to rescind its order and reinstate the case and stay all proceedings or in the
alternate a Notice of Appeal” filed on behalf of appellant Apparajan Ganesan.   By letter
from this Court dated March 3, 2009, we advised Ganesan that the “filing fee in the amount
of $175.00 ha[d] not been paid.  Failure to pay the filing fee within ten (10) days from the
date of this notice may result in a dismissal.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).”  Tex. R. App. P. 5. 
          Ganesan has not paid the fee as directed nor has he filed an affidavit of indigence. 
See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1.  Additionally, this court received a file marked copy of an order
from the trial court granting “Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Order,” presumably granting
Ganesan’s requested relief.  Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.
 
 
                                                     Mackey K. Hancock
                                                               Justice