Court Opinion

ID: 2925291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:18:34.667305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:39:10.857365
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-08-090-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

______________________________________________________________
 
JORGE ALBERTO MARTINEZ , 	Appellant,

v.

 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,	Appellee. 
_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

	Appellant, Jorge Alberto Martinez, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment
entered by the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number
C-1988-02-D.  The order subject to appeal was signed on May 8, 2003.  Notice of appeal
was not filed until February 14, 2008, almost five years later.  See generally Tex. R. App.
P. 26.1, 26.3.
	On April 7, the Clerk of this Court attempted to notify appellant of this defect by mail;
however, the Court's letter was returned as unclaimed.  On April 28, the Clerk again
attempted to notify appellant of this defect by regular and certified mail.  The
correspondence sent notified appellant that the appeal did not appear to be timely so that
steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that
the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the
date of receipt of this Court's letter.  The letter sent by certified mail has been returned to
the Court as unclaimed.  To date, appellant has failed to respond to the notice sent by
regular mail.  These notices were all sent to appellant's last known address.
	Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) requires unrepresented parties to sign
any document filed and "give the party's mailing address, telephone number, and fax
number, if any."  See Tex. R. App. P. 9.1(b).  Appellant has neither provided this court with
a forwarding address nor taken any other action to prosecute this appeal. 
	The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's
failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant's failure to respond to this Court's notice,
is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Accordingly,
the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  See Tex. R. App. P.
42.3(a),(c).
										PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 10th day of July, 2008.