Sebastian Jose Armesto v. Maria De La Luz Armesto--Appeal from 70th District Court of Ector County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SEBASTIAN JOSE ARMESTO, )

) No. 08-02-00449-CV

Appellant, )

) Appeal from the

v. )

) 70th District Court

MARIA DE LA LUZ ARMESTO, )

) of Ector County, Texas

Appellee. )

) (TC# A-107,918)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court on its own initiative is the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. Finding no Appellant=s brief has been filed, we dismiss the appeal.

Tex.R.App.P. 42.3 states:

Under the following circumstances, on any party=s motion--or on its own initiative after giving ten days= notice to all parties--the appellate court may dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order. Dismissal or affirmance may occur if the appeal is subject to dismissal:

(a) for want of jurisdiction;

(b) for want of prosecution; or

(c) because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time.

On October 15, 2002, Appellant timely filed notice of appeal in this cause. On the same date, this Court=s clerk sent a letter to Appellant informing him that we had received his brief,[1] but it would not be filed because the complete record in this cause had not yet been filed. Appellant was instructed to refer to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on how the record must be incorporated into his brief and what his brief must contain in order to be considered by the Court. As of this date, Appellant has not filed an amended brief as requested nor a motion for extension of time with the Court. On March 10, 2003, this Court=s clerk sent a letter to the parties indicating the Court=s intent to dismiss the case for want of prosecution absent a response from any party within ten days. No response has been received as of this date. Accordingly, pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(b) and (c), we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

May 1, 2003

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

Before Panel No. 3

Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and Chew, JJ.

[1] On October 15, 2002, this Court received a handwritten letter from Appellant asserting the various procedural steps he took in this cause before the trial court. Appellant=s letter was entitled ABrief,@ but was in the form of correspondence without record references or citation to any authorities.