State v. One Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty-Two Dollars U.S. Currency & One Cenet MacHine, Fruit Bounus 2000, City of Raymondville Coin MacHine Lincense 189-4, 2006 State of Texas Permit 152503, No Currency, and Other Items

Court of Appeals of Texas

State v. One Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty-Two Dollars U.S. Currency & One Cenet MacHine, Fruit Bounus 2000, City of Raymondville Coin MacHine Lincense 189-4, 2006 State of Texas Permit 152503, No Currency, and Other Items

DecidedJanuary 10, 2008

Docket13-07-00346-CV

StatusPublished

This text of State v. One Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty-Two Dollars U.S. Currency & One Cenet MacHine, Fruit Bounus 2000, City of Raymondville Coin MacHine Lincense 189-4, 2006 State of Texas Permit 152503, No Currency, and Other Items (State v. One Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty-Two Dollars U.S. Currency & One Cenet MacHine, Fruit Bounus 2000, City of Raymondville Coin MacHine Lincense 189-4, 2006 State of Texas Permit 152503, No Currency, and Other Items) 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

State v. One Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty-Two Dollars U.S. Currency & One Cenet MacHine, Fruit Bounus 2000, City of Raymondville Coin MacHine Lincense 189-4, 2006 State of Texas Permit 152503, No Currency, and Other Items, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-07-00346-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

ONE EIGHT THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED

AND SIXTY-TWO DOLLARS ($8,262.00)

U.S. CURRENCY, ET AL., Appellees.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 197th District Court

of Willacy County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on July 25, 2007. To date, said brief has not been filed. On August 6, 2007, the Court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant reasonably explained its failure to file the brief and the appellees were not significantly injured by its failure to do so. In response to this notice, appellant moved for an extension of time to file its brief, which was granted until September 10, 2007. Appellant thereafter failed to file a brief, and, on September 24, 2007, the court again notified appellant that its brief was late and further notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. Appellant has failed to respond to this notice and has further failed to pay required fees associated with its motion for extension of time.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered

and filed this the 10th day of January, 2008.

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

NUMBER 13-07-00346-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

ONE EIGHT THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED

AND SIXTY-TWO DOLLARS ($8,262.00)

U.S. CURRENCY, ET AL., Appellees.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 197th District Court

of Willacy County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on July 25, 2007. To date, said brief has not been filed. On August 6, 2007, the Court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant reasonably explained its failure to file the brief and the appellees were not significantly injured by its failure to do so. In response to this notice, appellant moved for an extension of time to file its brief, which was granted until September 10, 2007. Appellant thereafter failed to file a brief, and, on September 24, 2007, the court again notified appellant that its brief was late and further notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. Appellant has failed to respond to this notice and has further failed to pay required fees associated with its motion for extension of time.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered

and filed this the 10th day of January, 2008.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. One Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty-Two Dollars U.S. Currency & One Cenet MacHine, Fruit Bounus 2000, City of Raymondville Coin MacHine Lincense 189-4, 2006 State of Texas Permit 152503, No Currency, and Other Items, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-one-eight-thousand-two-hundred-and-sixty-two-dollars-us-texapp-2008.