In the Matter of the Marriage of James Earvin Sanders and Trisha Ann Sanders and in the Interest of D.N.S. v. the State of Texas
This text of In the Matter of the Marriage of James Earvin Sanders and Trisha Ann Sanders and in the Interest of D.N.S. v. the State of Texas (In the Matter of the Marriage of James Earvin Sanders and Trisha Ann Sanders and in the Interest of D.N.S. v. the State of Texas) 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 Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00066-CV
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JAMES EARVIN SANDERS AND TRISHA ANN SANDERS AND IN THE INTEREST OF D.N.S.
On Appeal from the 467th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 20-5707-462, Honorable Derbha H. Jones, Presiding
June 16, 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, James Earvin Sanders, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s
Order of Dismissal for Want of Prosecution in his suit for divorce from Appellee, Trisha
Ann Sanders. By his brief, he presents three issues simply stating “irreconcilable
differences,” “inability to participate in marriage counseling,” and “irreparable damage
done to the father-son relationship.”1 Trisha did not file a brief in response. For the
reasons expressed herein, we affirm.
1Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. BACKGROUND
James is serving a life sentence in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. He
filed a suit for divorce in July 2020, alleging the parties married in 1994 and ceased living
together in 2006. They have two sons but only one is a minor who will be eighteen in
August 2023. Trisha responded by letter that she was not contesting the divorce and
wished to finalize it as soon as possible. She requested that she be appointed sole
managing conservator of their minor son.
On September 26, 2022, a Notice of Dismissal Setting was sent to both parties
advising them a hearing date was set for November 18, 2022, at 2:30 p.m. The notice
informed them of specific guidelines which required compliance to avoid dismissal and
that “No Continuances” would be granted. By letter dated October 9, 2022, James
responded to the notice complaining Trisha was impeding visitation with his minor son.
He did not, however, comply with the directives in the notice of dismissal, including a
request for a trial setting.2
Neither party appeared for the November 18 hearing. That same date, the trial
court signed its order of dismissal for want of prosecution. The district clerk notified the
parties that the order of dismissal had been signed. James pursued this appeal.3
Should a conflict exist between precedent of the Second Court of Appeals and this Court on any relevant issue, this appeal will be decided in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court . TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2Although an inmate does not have an absolute right to personally appear in court, he cannot be denied the right to present argument and evidence in court. Robinson v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, No. 07-98-00272-CV, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 1518, at *8 (Tex. App.—Amarillo March 4, 1999, no pet.) (mem. op).
3 No record was taken in the underlying case. 2 APPLICABLE LAW
An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to dismiss a case for want of
prosecution for abuse of discretion. Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equip., 994 S.W.2d
628, 630 (Tex. 1999). Additionally, Rule 165a(2) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
allows a trial court to dismiss a case for want of prosecution when a case is not disposed
of within the time standards promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. R. CIV.
P. 165a(2). See also TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.1(b) (providing disposition deadlines in family
law cases). A trial court is vested with an additional basis for dismissing a case for want
of prosecution—the inherent power to manage its docket if a case is not prosecuted with
due diligence. Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 630.
ANALYSIS
After James filed his original brief, he was advised by the Clerk of this Court that
certain deficiencies required correction, including the failure to cite to legal authorities.
He was admonished that failure to comply with briefing rules could result in possible
waiver of his arguments. James did file a corrected brief; however, it remained deficient
in certain aspects, including the failure to cite to any legal authorities in support of his
arguments. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Sunnyside Feedyard v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 106
S.W.3d 169, 173 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, no pet.). While this Court is not
unsympathetic to the plight of an incarcerated person prosecuting a divorce, it does not
exempt him from complying with all applicable rules of procedure. See Li v. Pemberton
Park Cmty. Ass’n, 631 S.W.3d 701, 705–06 (Tex. 2021); Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn,
3 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978). Consequently, his issues are not preserved for
review.
Assuming, arguendo, that James had adequately preserved his issues, the record
before us does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court in dismissing the
suit for divorce for want of prosecution. James requests that his divorce be granted on
appeal, relief this Court has no authority to provide.
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s Order of Dismissal for Want of Prosecution is affirmed.
Alex L. Yarbrough Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Matter of the Marriage of James Earvin Sanders and Trisha Ann Sanders and in the Interest of D.N.S. v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-the-marriage-of-james-earvin-sanders-and-trisha-ann-texapp-2023.