Jack Hayes v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 22, 2003
Docket08-03-00074-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Jack Hayes v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (Jack Hayes v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services) 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.

Bluebook
Jack Hayes v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Criminal Case Template


COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS



JACK HAYES,

Appellant,



v.



TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE AND REGULATORY SERVICES,



Appellee.

§


§







No. 08-03-00074-CV



Appeal from the



65th Judicial District Court



of El Paso County, Texas



(TC# 2001CM6338)



M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N



This appeal is before the Court on its own motion, for determination of whether it should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that no Appellant's brief has been filed, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTS

This appeal is from a judgment signed January 15, 2003. The clerk's record was filed on February 13, 2003. On March 18, 2003, this Court granted the trial court's request for an extension of time to conduct a hearing to determine if Appellant was indigent. The trial court held a hearing on March 24, 2003, at which Appellant failed to appear. Appellee did appear and contested Appellant's indigency. Because he failed to appear, the trial court found there was no evidence to support a claim of indigency and that Appellant was not entitled to Court-appointed counsel.

Because this is an accelerated appeal, Appellant's brief was due April 17, 2003. No brief has been received in this Court, nor has a motion for extension of time to file Appellant's brief been received. On April 23, 2003, pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 and 38.8, this Court's clerk sent the parties a notice of the Court's intent to dismiss for want of prosecution if, within ten days of the notice, no party responded showing grounds to continue the appeal. No response has been received as of this date.

Appellant's Failure to File Brief

This Court possesses the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when Appellant has failed to file his brief in the time prescribed, and gives no reasonable explanation for such failure. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8; Celotex Corp. Inc. v. Gracy Meadow Owners Assoc., Inc., 847 S.W.2d 384, 385 n.1 (Tex. App.--Austin 1993, writ denied). We have given notice of our intent to do so, requested a response if a reasonable basis for failure to file the brief or statement of facts exists, and have received none. We see no purpose that would be served by declining to dismiss this appeal at this stage of the proceedings. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8 and 42.3(b), we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

May 22, 2003



RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice



Before Panel No. 4

Barajas, C.J., Larsen and McClure, JJ.



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

Related

CELOTEX CORPORATION INC v. Gracy Meadow Owners Ass'n
847 S.W.2d 384 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jack Hayes v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jack-hayes-v-texas-department-of-protective-and-re-texapp-2003.