Court Opinion

ID: 3103478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:28:57.73206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:59.409826
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-11-00165-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

VIDAL CONDE,                                                            APPELLANT,

                                           v.

GLOBAL SPECTRUM,                                  APPELLEE.
____________________________________________________________

          On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                  Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes
                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, Vidal Conde, appealed a judgment entered by the County Court at Law

No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas. On March 28, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified

appellant that the notice of appeal was not in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 25.1(d)(2), 25.1(d)(7) and 25.1(e). See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1. Appellant was

advised to file an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk and forward a copy to
the Court. In response, appellant requested an extension of time to comply which was

granted by the Court until April 22, 2011.

       The Court did not receive an amended notice of appeal and on May 18, 2011, the

Clerk of this Court again notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)(2), 25.1(d)(7) and 25.1(e). See id. 25.1.

The Clerk notified appellant that the defects had not been corrected and warned appellant

that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were not cured within ten days.

Appellant failed to respond to the Court=s notice.

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s failure to

correct these defects, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id.

37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

                                                 PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
14th day of July, 2011

                                             2