Daniel Gomez v. State

Opinion

NUMBER 13-12-00715-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

PATRICIO AHUMADA, Appellant,

v.

JOE HINTON, COMPASS BANK AND JULIO SALAZAR, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This matter is before the Court on a defective notice of appeal and appellant's

failure to correct the defect. On November 27, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified

appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.5(e) (3). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e) (3). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk's office within 30 days from the date of

that notice.

On January 30, 2013, the Clerk advised appellant that the defect had not been

corrected and additionally notified appellant that the notice of appeal was not in

compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)(2). Appellant was advised

that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were not cured after the expiration of ten

days from the date of receipt of the Court's notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(2), 37.1,

42.3(b),(c). Appellant has failed to correct the defects or otherwise respond to the

Court's notices.

On its own motion, with ten days notice to the parties, an appellate court may

dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the

clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to

comply with a notice from the Court. See id.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 28th day of February, 2013.