Pedro Gonzalez v. Carlos Moreno
This text of Pedro Gonzalez v. Carlos Moreno (Pedro Gonzalez v. Carlos Moreno) 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.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-25-00164-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________
PEDRO GONZALEZ, Appellant,
v.
CARLOS MORENO, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS ____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva
On April 3, 2025, appellant filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal the
judgment rendered in trial court cause number 2022-CCL-00258 on March 5, 2025. On
April 7, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal was
defective and failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)(2), as it
appears the judgment was entered on March 6, 2025. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(2). Appellant was instructed to correct the defect within ten days from the date of the notice.
Appellant was further notified to remit the $205.00 filing fee within ten days from the date
of the notice.
On May 7, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant of the delinquent filing
fee; appellant was further notified that if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from
the date of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c). On May 16,
2025, the Clerk of the Court again notified appellant that the notice of appeal was
defective and failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)(2). See id.
R.25.1(d)(2). Appellant was further notified that if he failed to cure the defects within ten
days from the date of the letter, the appeal would be dismissed. See id. R.42.3(b), (c).
Appellant has not cured the defective notice of appeal, paid the filing fee, nor
otherwise responded to the notices from the Clerk of the Court requiring a response or
other action within the time specified. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of
prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).
CLARISSA SILVA Justice
Delivered and filed on the 26th day of June, 2025.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pedro Gonzalez v. Carlos Moreno, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pedro-gonzalez-v-carlos-moreno-texapp-2025.