Armando Eugene Hicks v. Officer Milagros G. Delosreyes

Court of Appeals of Texas

Armando Eugene Hicks v. Officer Milagros G. Delosreyes

DecidedJanuary 10, 2008

Docket13-07-00727-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Armando Eugene Hicks v. Officer Milagros G. Delosreyes (Armando Eugene Hicks v. Officer Milagros G. Delosreyes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armando Eugene Hicks v. Officer Milagros G. Delosreyes, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-07-727-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_____________________________________________________________

ARMANDO EUGENE HICKS, Appellant,

v.

OFFICER MILAGROS G. DELOSREYES, Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 343rd District Court

of Bee County, Texas.

_____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Armando Eugene Hicks, appearing pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 343rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number B-07-1184-CV-C. Judgment in this cause was signed on October 12, 2007. The record fails to contain a motion for new trial. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant's notice of appeal was due on November 11, 2007, but was not filed until December 4, 2007. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant did not file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal. See id. 26.3.

On December 6, 2007, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court's letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. Appellant has, however, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

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). Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is likewise dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 10th day of January, 2008.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NUMBER 13-07-727-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_____________________________________________________________

ARMANDO EUGENE HICKS, Appellant,

v.

OFFICER MILAGROS G. DELOSREYES, Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 343rd District Court

of Bee County, Texas.

_____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Armando Eugene Hicks, appearing pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 343rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number B-07-1184-CV-C. Judgment in this cause was signed on October 12, 2007. The record fails to contain a motion for new trial. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant's notice of appeal was due on November 11, 2007, but was not filed until December 4, 2007. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant did not file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal. See id. 26.3.

On December 6, 2007, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court's letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. Appellant has, however, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

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). Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is likewise dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 10th day of January, 2008.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Armando Eugene Hicks v. Officer Milagros G. Delosreyes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armando-eugene-hicks-v-officer-milagros-g-delosrey-texapp-2008.