Melvin Raymond Schield, Jr. v. Dianna Lee Schield

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 10, 2014
Docket01-12-00849-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Melvin Raymond Schield, Jr. v. Dianna Lee Schield (Melvin Raymond Schield, Jr. v. Dianna Lee Schield) 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
Melvin Raymond Schield, Jr. v. Dianna Lee Schield, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Opinion issued April 10, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-12-00849-CV ——————————— MELVIN RAYMOND SCHIELD, JR., Appellant V. DIANNA LEE SCHIELD, Appellee

On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 62712

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Melvin Raymond Schield, Jr., perfected an appeal from the trial

court’s judgment signed on August 10, 2012. The trial court clerk filed the clerk’s

record on March 4, 2013. The court reporter filed the reporter’s record on June 14, 2013. Appellant’s brief, therefore, was due to be filed no later than July 15, 2013.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 38.6(a). This Court granted appellant’s motion for

extension of time to file his brief, extending the due date to October 14, 2013. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d).

On October 18, 2013, after appellant failed to timely file a brief, the Clerk of

this Court notified appellant that he had failed to timely file a brief and that failure

to file a brief by October 28, 2013 could lead to dismissal of this appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). The Clerk of this Court notified appellant at his address

at the Pam Lychner State Jail, 2350 Atascosita Road, Humble, Texas 77396. This

notice was returned to the Court, and the Court was informed that appellant had

been released and that the notice could not be forwarded.

Accordingly, because appellant has not filed a brief or responded to the

Court’s notice, and has not provided us with any other address or means of

contacting him, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Melvin Raymond Schield, Jr. v. Dianna Lee Schield, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvin-raymond-schield-jr-v-dianna-lee-schield-texapp-2014.