Kathryn Ann Mullen v. Judge Cody Henson County Attorney Eddie Arrendondo Tamera Tinney, Magistrate Habib Erkan, City Prosecutor And Sonny MacAfee, City District Attorney

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 31, 2023
Docket03-23-00298-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Kathryn Ann Mullen v. Judge Cody Henson County Attorney Eddie Arrendondo Tamera Tinney, Magistrate Habib Erkan, City Prosecutor And Sonny MacAfee, City District Attorney (Kathryn Ann Mullen v. Judge Cody Henson County Attorney Eddie Arrendondo Tamera Tinney, Magistrate Habib Erkan, City Prosecutor And Sonny MacAfee, City District Attorney) 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
Kathryn Ann Mullen v. Judge Cody Henson County Attorney Eddie Arrendondo Tamera Tinney, Magistrate Habib Erkan, City Prosecutor And Sonny MacAfee, City District Attorney, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00298-CV

Kathryn Ann Mullen, Appellant

v.

Judge Cody Henson; County Attorney Eddie Arrendondo; Tamera Tinney, Magistrate; Habib Erkan, City Prosecutor; and Sonny Macafee, City District Attorney, Appellees

FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY NO. 55314, THE HONORABLE EVAN C. STUBBS, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on July 10, 2023.

On July 11, 2023, we notified appellant that no clerk’s record had been filed due to her failure to

pay or make arrangements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The notice

requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report

regarding this appeal by July 21, 2023. Further, the notice advised appellant that her failure to

comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. To

date, appellant has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to this Court’s notice, and the

clerk’s record has not been filed.

If a trial-court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to

pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court

may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established

that she is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. Because

appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s

record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

__________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: July 31, 2023

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kathryn Ann Mullen v. Judge Cody Henson County Attorney Eddie Arrendondo Tamera Tinney, Magistrate Habib Erkan, City Prosecutor And Sonny MacAfee, City District Attorney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kathryn-ann-mullen-v-judge-cody-henson-county-attorney-eddie-arrendondo-texapp-2023.