Estella Varice Battieste v. Jonathan Thornberry

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 10-25-00262-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00262-CV

Estella Varice Battieste, Appellant

v.

Jonathan Thornberry, Appellee

On appeal from the 12th District Court of Walker County, Texas Judge David W. Moorman, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 1728444

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Estella Varice Battieste, filed an appeal of the trial court’s

judgment signed on July 11, 2025. In their docketing statement filed with this

Court, Appellant alleged that the clerk’s record would be requested on

September 22, 2025. On September 10, 2025, by letter from the Clerk of this

Court, Appellant was directed to pay, or make arrangements to pay, for the

clerk’s record no later than October 1, 2025. On October 1, 2025, Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to pay for the clerk’s record until

October 31, 2025, and that motion was granted by this Court. On October 31,

2025, the trial court clerk requested an extension of time until November 7,

2025, and informed this Court that Appellant had “said they are making

payment arrangements” for the clerk’s record but had not done so. On

November 7, 2025, the trial court clerk requested an extension of time to

December 31, 2025 because the attorney’s payment for the clerk’s record was

returned due to insufficient funds and that the clerk’s efforts to communicate

with Appellant’s attorney had been unsuccessful. The clerk’s motion was

granted in part until December 8, 2025. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c). On

December 8, 2025, the trial court clerk informed this Court that she had not

had any communication with Appellant’s attorney since October 31, 2025, and

that no payment had been made for the record and the balance was still

outstanding.

On December 8, 2025, Appellant was notified by letter from the Clerk of

this Court that the clerk’s record had not been filed because the fee for the

clerk’s record had not been paid and that this appeal would be dismissed if the

appellant did not pay the fee for the clerk’s record and notify this Court of her

compliance on or before December 15, 2025, or the appeal would be dismissed

for want of prosecution.

Battieste v. Thornberry Page 2 On December 18, 2025, the trial court clerk informed this Court that the

payment for the record had not been made. Further, Appellant did not provide

verification of the payment with this Court or file any other response to the

Clerk’s letter.

Appellant did not comply with the letter from the Clerk regarding

making the payment for the clerk’s record or providing verification to this

Court and the clerk’s record has not been filed with this Court. Therefore, this

appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and for failing to comply with a

requirement of “a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action

within a specified time.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). Appellant’s motion

for stay is dismissed as moot.

LEE HARRIS Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: December 23, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Appeal dismissed Motion dismissed CV06

Battieste v. Thornberry Page 3