Brian Hughes v. Daniela C. Hughes

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 13, 2023
• Docket: 01-23-00142-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued July 13, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00142-CV ——————————— BRIAN DAVID HUGHES, Appellant V. DANIELA HOLLAND, Appellee

On Appeal from the 246th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2013-44991

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Brian David Hughes, has neither paid the required fees nor

established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1;

see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.851(b), 51.941(a); Order,

Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158

(Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). On March 21, 2023, appellant was notified that this appeal

was subject to dismissal if appellate costs were not paid, or indigence was not

established, by April 20, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not

adequately respond.

Further, appellant has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a)

(governing time to file brief). Appellant filed a notice of appeal from a February 21,

2023 trial court order. On March 6, 2023, the court reporter notified the Court that

there was no reporter’s record for this case, and on April 24, 2023, the clerk’s record

was filed. Accordingly, appellant’s brief was due to be filed on or before May 24,

2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellant did not file an appellant’s brief.

On June 6, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that this appeal was

subject to dismissal unless a brief or a motion to extend time to file a brief was filed

within ten days of the notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of

appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of

prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply

with notice from Clerk of Court). Despite the notice that this appeal was subject to

dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond.

2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and

want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). All pending

motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.