Chastity Lucas v. William K. Gleason, as of the Estate of Robert Wallace Despain, Pollyanna Despain, Debbie Sue Vincent, Michael Thomas Vincent, and Daniel Lee Vincent

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 19, 2023
• Docket: 06-23-00069-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-23-00069-CV

CHASTITY LUCAS, Appellant

V.

WILLIAM K. GLEASON, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT WALLACE DESPAIN, POLLYANNA DESPAIN, DEBBIE SUE VINCENT, MICHAEL THOMAS VINCENT, AND DANIEL LEE VINCENT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th District Court Marion County, Texas Trial Court No. 2200085

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION

Chastity Lucas, appellant, filed a notice of appeal in this matter on September 1, 2023.

Appellant has not filed a docketing statement in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. Further, appellant has not tendered the

mandatory $205.00 filing fee associated with the appeal, see TEX. R. APP. P. 5, and has not filed

proof of indigency in lieu of a filing fee, see TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1.

“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay—at the

time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court

order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just.” TEX. R. APP. P. 5.

By letter dated September 27, 2023, we provided appellant with notice of and an

opportunity to cure those defects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). The clerk’s letter further

warned appellant that, if she did not submit an adequate response to the notice by October 10,

2023, this appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply

with the above-cited rules. Appellant did not file a docketing statement, did not pay the

mandatory filing fee, and did not file proof of indigency in lieu of a filing fee. Further, we

received no communication from appellant responsive to the September 27, 2023,

correspondence. Accordingly, this appeal is ripe for dismissal.

2 Pursuant to Rule 42.3, subsections (b) and (c), of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

Charles van Cleef Justice

Date Submitted: October 18, 2023 Date Decided: October 19, 2023