Court Opinion

ID: 9385180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 08:25:01.201076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.565607
License: Public Domain

In The
                                  Court of Appeals
                         Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                         No. 07-23-00063-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF CONNIE A. SCHAFFNER, AN ADULT

                                On Appeal from the County Court
                                       Clay County, Texas1
                   Trial Court No. 2-22-G, Honorable Mike Campbell, Presiding

                                            April 5, 2023
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                        Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

        Appellant, Sharon Hylton, filed a restricted appeal from a final order dated August

19, 2022, appointing permanent guardians for Connie A. Schaffner, an incapacitated

person. On February 24, 2023, appointed counsel for Schaffner filed a motion to dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that Hylton was not a party in the trial court and

lacked standing to pursue a restricted appeal. This Court requested that Hylton file a

response to the motion to dismiss no later than March 23, 2023. Hylton failed to respond.

        1Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s docket equalization efforts, this case was transferred to this
Court from the Second Court of Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
Further, Hylton’s brief was due February 24, 2023. Hylton has failed to timely file a brief

and has not filed a motion requesting an extension of time for the filing of her brief. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (authorizing dismissal of

appeal for want of prosecution if appellant fails to timely file brief).

       Hylton has failed to file a brief, failed to provide any explanation for her failure to

file a brief, and failed to respond to a notice from this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (authorizing dismissal for

want of prosecution), (c) (authorizing dismissal “because the appellant has failed to

comply with . . . a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a

specified time”). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

                                                           Per Curiam

                                               2