Michael Edward Strickland v. The State of Texas Appeal from 82nd District Court of Falls County (memorandum opinion by chief justice gray)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-14-00406-CR No. 10-14-00407-CR MICHAEL EDWARD STRICKLAND, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 82nd District Court Falls County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 8032 and 8033 MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael Edward Strickland was convicted for two charges of Indecency with a Child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11 (West 2011). He now appeals the denial of his motion for DNA testing filed in each of those convictions. Strickland’s briefs in these appeals were due to be filed in this Court on or before May 26, 2015. To date, no briefs have been filed. By letter dated June 3, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified Strickland that his briefs were past due and warned him that unless briefs or satisfactory responses were received within 14 days from the date of the letter, the Court would conclude these appeals were not taken with the intention of pursuing them to completion but instead taken for the purpose of delay and would dismiss the appeals without further notice, under the Court’s inherent authority, for want of prosecution. More than 14 days have passed and Strickland has not filed his briefs or any other response. Accordingly, we conclude Strickland’s appeals of the denials of his motions for DNA testing were not taken with the intention of pursuing them to completion but instead taken for the purpose of delay and dismiss these appeals, under the Court’s inherent authority, for want of prosecution. See Ealy v. State, 222 S.W.3d 744, 745 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.); Peralta v. State, 82 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.); Stavinoha v. State, 82 S.W.3d 690 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.). TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeals dismissed Opinion delivered and filed June 25, 2015 Do not publish [CR25] Strickland v. State Page 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
