Raymond Malone v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 25, 2019
Docket02-18-00389-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Raymond Malone v. State (Raymond Malone v. State) 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
Raymond Malone v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-18-00389-CR ___________________________

RAYMOND MALONE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 3 Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. CR-2017-08064-C

Before Bassel, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Womack, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Raymond Malone seeks to appeal his conviction for driving while

intoxicated. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a). On February 28, 2019, we notified

Appellant, whom the trial court had previously found was no longer indigent, that the

trial court clerk responsible for preparing the clerk’s record had informed this court

that payment arrangements had not been made for the clerk’s record. See Tex. R.

App. P. 35.3(a)(2). We also informed him that we would dismiss this appeal for want

of prosecution unless, by March 11, 2019, he made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s

record and provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b),

44.3. We received no response.

On April 12, 2019, we again notified Appellant that we would dismiss this

appeal for want of prosecution unless, by April 22, 2019, he made arrangements to

pay for the clerk’s record and provided this court with proof of payment. We

received no response.

Similarly, on May 22, 2019, we notified Appellant that we would dismiss this

appeal for want of prosecution unless, by June 3, 2019, he made arrangements to pay

for the clerk’s record and provided this court with proof of payment. We received no

response.

Because Appellant, who does not appear to be indigent, has not made

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record, we dismiss this appeal for want of

2 prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 43.2(f); Sutherland v. State, 132 S.W.3d 510,

512 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: July 25, 2019

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

Related

Sutherland v. State
132 S.W.3d 510 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Raymond Malone v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-malone-v-state-texapp-2019.