Dominic D. Miller v. Angela Smoak, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, and Matthew R. Patton, IV, Criminal Defense Attorney
This text of Dominic D. Miller v. Angela Smoak, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, and Matthew R. Patton, IV, Criminal Defense Attorney (Dominic D. Miller v. Angela Smoak, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, and Matthew R. Patton, IV, Criminal Defense Attorney) 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.
Opinion
In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-23-00066-CV
DOMINIC D. MILLER, Appellant
V.
ANGELA SMOAK, ASSISTANT CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND MATTHEW R. PATTON, IV, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, Appellees
On Appeal from the 115th District Court Marion County, Texas Trial Court No. 2300042
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Dominic D. Miller filed a pro se notice of appeal on August 17, 2023. The
clerk’s record was filed on October 11, 2023. The original deadline for Miller’s appellate brief
was November 10, 2023.
On November 20, 2023, we received a document that purported to be Miller’s appellate
brief. The following day, we sent Miller a letter explaining that, for numerous reasons, the
document we received was inadequate to serve as a brief because it did not meet the
requirements of Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.
In our letter, we provided Miller with a detailed explanation of why the document he provided to
this Court failed to comply with Rule 38.1. We informed Miller that, if he did not file a brief
that complied with Rule 38.1 by December 21, 2023, the appeal would be ripe for dismissal.
On January 4, 2024, Miller provided this Court with a second document that we
construed as his “corrected” brief. That document also failed to comply with the requirements of
Rule 38.1. Because Miller did not file a brief meeting the requirements of Rule 38.1, his appeal
is ripe for dismissal.
2 Pursuant to Rules 38.8 and 42.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss
this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8, 42.3; see also Williams v. Johnson,
No. 10-02-346-CV, 2003 WL 21361266 (Tex. App.—Waco June 4, 2003, pet. denied)
(per curiam) (mem. op.).
Charles van Cleef Justice Date Submitted: January 5, 2024 Date Decided: January 8, 2024
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dominic D. Miller v. Angela Smoak, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, and Matthew R. Patton, IV, Criminal Defense Attorney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominic-d-miller-v-angela-smoak-assistant-criminal-district-attorney-texapp-2024.