Francisco Gonzales v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 21, 2002
• Docket: 06-01-00223-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-01-00223-CR ______________________________

FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court Wood County, Texas Trial Court No. 15,705-98

---

Before Cornelius, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ. Opinion by Justice Ross

O P I N I O N

Francisco Gonzalez has filed a motion in which he asks this Court to dismiss his appeal. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.2, his motion is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

Donald R. Ross

Justice

Date Submitted: May 21, 2002

Date Decided: May 21, 2002

Do Not Publish

160;                           

On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 65826

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Bryan Walter, attorney of record for the mother of the children in this case, has appealed from an order in which the trial court denied his motion to enforce an award of attorney's fees from the father. The clerk's record was filed October 24, 2005. Walter did not request preparation of a reporter's record. Walter has taken no action since filing his notice of appeal September 26, 2005. He has not attempted to obtain a reporter's record, has not filed his brief based on the clerk's record, and has not contacted this Court to explain either of these failures.

            On January 26, 2006, we entered an order directing Walter to provide this Court with information adequate to show that he was attempting to effectively prosecute his appeal and warned him that, if we did not receive such information within ten days, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 42.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. Twenty days have now elapsed, and counsel has not contacted the Court.

            We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

                                                                                    Jack Carter

Date Submitted:          February 15, 2006

Date Decided:             February 16, 2006