Stephen D. Diferrante v. George Wesley Bruner

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 11, 2016
Docket01-16-00033-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Stephen D. Diferrante v. George Wesley Bruner (Stephen D. Diferrante v. George Wesley Bruner) 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
Stephen D. Diferrante v. George Wesley Bruner, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Opinion issued August 11, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00033-CV ——————————— STEPHEN D. DIFERRANTE, Appellant V. GEORGE WESLEY BRUNER, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1068375

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Stephen D. Diferrante, has neither established indigence, nor paid,

or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence), 37.3(b) (allowing

dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault). To proceed in the appellate court without payment of costs, an appellant must file an affidavit of

indigence in the trial court with or before the notice of appeal and the affidavit must

be in compliance with the requirements of Rule 20.1(b). See TEX. R. APP. P.

20.1(a)(2), (b). The previous filing of an affidavit of indigence in the trial court does

not meet the requirement of Rule 20.1. See id. at 20.1(c)(1). After being notified

that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant responded that he had filed an

affidavit of indigence, but the affidavit was filed in the trial court and not pursuant

to Rule 20.1. Accordingly, this previously-filed affidavit does not satisfy the

requirements of Rule 20.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b)

(allowing involuntary dismissal). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Stephen D. Diferrante v. George Wesley Bruner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-d-diferrante-v-george-wesley-bruner-texapp-2016.