Karen Williamson v. Naomi Ruth Abernathy

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 19, 2006
• Docket: 13-03-00567-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                           NUMBER 13-03-567-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

KAREN WILLIAMSON,                                                                     Appellant,

                                                             v.

NAOMI RUTH ABERNETHY, ET AL.,                                             Appellees.

                              On appeal from the 28th District Court

                                        of Nueces County, Texas.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

         Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Yañez

                                 Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Pro se appellant, Karen Williamson, attempts to appeal a judgment dismissing her suit against appellees, Naomi Ruth Abernethy, et al.  On July 14, 2005, this Court abated the appeal and remanded it to the trial court for the purposes of conducting a hearing to determine the accuracy and completeness of the record on appeal, whether appellant desired to prosecute the appeal, and whether appellant was indigent and entitled to appointed counsel on appeal.  The Court has now received the trial court=s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the resulting hearing that was held on November 22, 2005.

According to the trial court=s findings, appellant failed to appear at the hearing although notice of the hearing had been furnished to appellant.  The trial court found that appellant did not participate in the hearing and did not provide any evidence of indigent status.  The court further found that there was no evidence from which it could conclude that the public and private interests at stake in the litigation were so exceptional that the administration of justice would be best served by appointing an attorney to represent appellant.  As a result of appellant=s failure to appear at the hearing, the court found that appellant did not wish to prosecute the appeal. 

Based on our review of the appellate record and the trial court=s findings, we conclude that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.  Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).  Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 19th day of January, 2006.