Robert B. Martinez v. Emilia Castillo Martinez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 2, 2023
• Docket: 13-22-00470-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-22-00470-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

ROBERT B. MARTINEZ, Appellant,

v.

EMILIA CASTILLO MARTINEZ, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 150th District Court of Bexar County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 19, 2022. 1 On October 17, 2022,

the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appears that there is no final, appealable

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. order and that he was delinquent in remitting a $205.00 filing fee. The Clerk of the Court

further notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if the defect was not

corrected, or the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of receipt of the

Court’s notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). On November 17, 2022, this notice was

returned undeliverable and marked “unclaimed” and “unable to forward.” On November

17, 2022, the Clerk of the Court sent a second notice of the defect and delinquency in

remitting a filing fee. To date, the appellant has neither responded nor cured the defects

in the notice of appeal. Additionally, appellant has failed to pay the filing fee.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) requires unrepresented parties to sign

any document filed and "give the party's mailing address, telephone number, fax number,

if any, and email address." See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b). The clerk’s office attempted to

make contact with appellant via telephone, and the telephone number returned a

“subscriber not in service message.”

Furthermore, Rule 42.3 permits an appellate court, on its own initiative after giving

ten days' notice to all parties, to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or for failure

to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules. See id. 42.3(b), (c). Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 2nd day of February, 2023.