in the Matter of the Marriage of Kathryn Louise Casillas and Joe Vidal Casillas
This text of in the Matter of the Marriage of Kathryn Louise Casillas and Joe Vidal Casillas (in the Matter of the Marriage of Kathryn Louise Casillas and Joe Vidal Casillas) 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. 06-06-00019-CV
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
KATHRYN LOUISE CASILLAS AND JOE VIDAL CASILLAS
On Appeal from the 76th Judicial District Court
Camp County, Texas
Trial Court No. DV-05-122
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 3, 2006, appellant, Joe Vidal Casillas, filed a notice of appeal. Since that time, Casillas has taken no action: no docketing statement has been filed (see Tex. R. App. P. 32.1), no brief has been submitted, and no filing fee or affidavit of indigency has been filed. On March 29, 2006, we notified Casillas that this appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to comply with various Rules of Appellate Procedure unless this Court received some response from Casillas, by April 10, 2006. We have received no response.
Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), and 42.3(b), we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: April 25, 2006
Date Decided: April 26, 2006
ins v. State, 208 S.W.3d 469, 470 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2006, no pet.); Lackey, 881 S.W.2d at 420-21.
We do not believe the sentence was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense, but even if it was, there is no evidence in the record from which we could compare Jenkins' sentence to the sentences imposed on other persons in Texas or on persons in other jurisdictions who committed a similar offense. See Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 69 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd); Davis v. State, 905 S.W.2d 655, 664-65 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995, pet. ref'd). Without such evidence, the record before us does not support Jenkins' claim of demonstrable error. Cf. Jackson, 989 S.W.2d at 846 ("there is no evidence in the record reflecting sentences imposed for similar offenses on criminals in Texas or other jurisdictions by which to make a comparison").
There being no other issues before us, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: March 5, 2009
Date Decided: March 6, 2009
Do Not Publish
1. The trial court did not conduct a hearing on Jenkins' motion for new trial, which was overruled by operation of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.8.
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 Kathryn Louise Casillas and Joe Vidal Casillas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-the-marriage-of-kathryn-louise-ca-texapp-2006.