In re Guardianship of Lucille F. Panza, An Incapacitated Person--Appeal from Probate Court No 1 of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-04-00378-CV
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF LUCILLE F. PANZA, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON
From the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2003-PC-03038
Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 13, 2004

DISMISSED

On September 20, 2004, appellant filed a motion stating that the parties have fully compromised and settled all issues in this appeal. The motion requests that we either: (1) dismiss the appeal and render judgment in accordance with the parties' settlement agreement; or (2) dismiss the appeal and remand for entry of judgment in accordance with the parties' settlement agreement.

On September 22, 2004, we notified the appellant that while this court may dismiss an appeal in accordance with a motion of the appellant or pursuant to an agreement of the parties, we are not permitted to dismiss and remand for further proceedings or dismiss and render judgment. Our order stated that the types of judgments this court is authorized to enter are found in Rule 43.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that the court of appeals may:

(a) affirm the trial court's judgment in whole or in part;

(b) modify the trial court's judgment and affirm it as modified;

(c) reverse the trial court's judgment in whole or in part and render the judgment that the trial court should have rendered;

(d) reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for further proceedings;

(e) vacate the trial court's judgment and dismiss the case; or

(f) dismiss the appeal.

Tex. R. App. P. 43.2. Accordingly, we instructed appellant to clarify the nature of the disposition the parties agreed for this court to take with regard to this appeal.

On October 6, 2004, appellant responded to our order. Appellant's response, however, fails to clarify the nature of the disposition the parties have agreed for this court to take with regard to the appeal. We therefore interpret appellant's September 20, 2004 motion as a motion seeking dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 43.2(f). See id. at (f). Appellant's motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM