Wendell H. Taylor v. Zurich American Insurance Company

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 29, 2009
• Docket: 07-09-00324-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-09-0324-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

DECEMBER 29, 2009

______________________________

WENDELL H. TAYLOR,

                                                                                                           Appellant

V.

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                                                                                           Appellee

_______________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2008-562,834; HON. PAULA DAVIS LANEHART, PRESIDING

Memorandum Opinion

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

          Appellant Wendell H. Taylor filed a notice of appeal on October 2, 2009. However, appellant did not pay the $175 filing fee required from appellants under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5. On October 13, 2009, appellant filed an affidavit of indigency, which was contested by the county clerk on October 30, 2009. By hearing on November 30, 2009, the trial court determined that appellant was not indigent and able to pay the costs associated with prosecuting this appeal. By letter from this Court dated December 14, 2009, we informed appellant that “the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 has not been paid . . . . If the filing fee is not paid on or before December 28, 2009, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.” Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); see Holt v. F. F. Enterprises, 990 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d). The deadline lapsed, and the fee was not received.

          Because appellant has failed to pay the requisite filing fee as directed by the court, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c).

                                                                           Per Curiam

 

"69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>

NO.  07-10-0425-CR

NO. 07-10-0426-CR

NO. 07-10-0427-CR

NO. 07-10-0428-CR

                                                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                                       FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                 AT AMARILLO

                                                                      PANEL B

                                                                   MAY 4, 2011

                                            ______________________________

                                                    PRESTON JAMES BYERLY,

                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                             v.

                                                        THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                                            Appellee

                                              _____________________________

                     FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY;

                                NOS. 1158634D; 1159402D; 1158631D; 1160317D;

HON. RUBEN GONZALEZ, PRESIDING

                                            ______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Preston James Byerly (appellant) appeals his multiple convictions and judgments for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.  Upon pleading guilty to the four indictments, and after presenting punishment evidence, appellant was sentenced to forty years in prison for each offense.  Before us is appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, together with an Anders¹ brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was without merit.  Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se.  By letter dated March 11, 2011, this court also notified appellant of his right to tender his own response and set April 11, 2011, as the deadline to do so.  To date, no response has been filed.  

            In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed six potential areas for appeal.  They included 1) the adequacy of the indictments, 2) the trial court’s jurisdiction, 3) whether the open plea of guilty was valid, 4) trial court error in denying appellant’s motion for new trial, 5) possible punishment error including a discussion on cruel and unusual punishment and 6) disproportionate sentencing.  However, counsel then proceeded to explain why none of the issues required reversal on appeal.

            In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  After doing so, we concur with those conclusions. 

            Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgments are affirmed.

                                                                                    Brian Quinn

                                                                                    Chief Justice

Do not publish. 

---

¹See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).