in the Interest of S.M., a Child

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in in the Interest of S.M., a Child. Read the opinion of the Court — 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 8092
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided July 13, 2011·No. 07-11-00239-CV·Published

Opinion

            NO. 07-11-0239-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

JULY 13, 2010 

In the Interest of S.M., a Child

___________________________

FROM THE 72nd DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2008-542,245; HONORABLE RUBEN REYES, PRESIDING

Order of Dismissal

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.


Appellant Cesar Mendez filed a notice of appeal on June 15, 2011.  However, appellant did not pay the $175 filing fee required under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.  Nor did he file with us an affidavit of indigence per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1.  By letter from this Court dated June 21, 2011, we informed appellant that the filing fee had not been paid and that the failure to cure the default within ten days may result in a dismissal of his appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); see Holt v. F. F. Enterprises, 990 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.Amarillo 1998, pet. ref=d).  The fee was not so paid.  Nor did appellant tender an affidavit of indigence within that time.  Indeed, the absence of such an affidavit was noted by the trial court via an order dated July 1, 2011, wherein it discharged appellant’s appointed counsel from further representing appellant.  The trial court also disclosed in the order that appellant had not claimed to be indigent.

Because appellant has failed to pay the requisite filing fees as directed by the court, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c).

Per Curiam

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

in the Interest of S.M., a Child, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

in the Interest of S.M., a Child (in the Interest of S.M., a Child) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Holt v. F.F. Enterprises
990 S.W.2d 756 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)