Leroy L. Horton v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 17, 2006
• Docket: 07-05-00306-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-05-0306-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JANUARY 17, 2006

______________________________

LEROY L. HORTON, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2000-434070; HONORABLE JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before this Court is appellant Leroy L. Horton's motion to dismiss his appeal. Pursuant to Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is signed by appellant. No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Don H. Reavis

Justice

Do not publish.

t-family: 'Arial', sans-serif">FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 093372-00-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          On February 24, 2009, the clerk of this court received a copy of a “Request to the [trial] court to rescind its order and reinstate the case and stay all proceedings or in the alternate a Notice of Appeal” filed on behalf of appellant Apparajan Ganesan. By letter from this Court dated March 3, 2009, we advised Ganesan that the “filing fee in the amount of $175.00 ha[d] not been paid. Failure to pay the filing fee within ten (10) days from the date of this notice may result in a dismissal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).” Tex. R. App. P. 5.

          Ganesan has not paid the fee as directed nor has he filed an affidavit of indigence. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. Additionally, this court received a file marked copy of an order from the trial court granting “Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Order,” presumably granting Ganesan’s requested relief. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

                                                     Mackey K. Hancock