Thurmond Dlanzo Washington v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 13, 2007
Docket06-07-00025-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Thurmond Dlanzo Washington v. State (Thurmond Dlanzo Washington 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
Thurmond Dlanzo Washington v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion



In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana



______________________________


No. 06-07-00025-CR
______________________________


THURMOND DLANZO WASHINGTON, Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from the 188th Judicial District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 34,856-A





Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Thurmond Dlanzo Washington, appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appeal. The motion is signed by Washington and by his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. As authorized by Rule 42.2, we grant the motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.



Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice



Date Submitted: March 12, 2007

Date Decided: March 13, 2007



Do Not Publish



t-family: Times New Roman">

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter


MEMORANDUM OPINION



William House, appellant, filed his notice of appeal September 13, 2007. House has not filed a docketing statement with this Court, see Tex. R. App. P. 32, nor has he paid a filing fee or made any claim of indigency. There is nothing in the record to indicate House has made efforts to have either the clerk's record or reporter's record filed with this Court, and he has not filed a brief. On October 30, 2007, we contacted House by letter, giving him an opportunity to cure the various defects, and warning him that, if we did not receive an adequate response within ten days, this appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

We have received no communication from House. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.



Jack Carter

Justice



Date Submitted: November 27, 2007

Date Decided: November 28, 2007

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Thurmond Dlanzo Washington v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thurmond-dlanzo-washington-v-state-texapp-2007.