Keith Jackson v. Ofelia E. Espinoza--Appeal from 274th District Court of Comal County

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-97-00261-CV
Keith Jackson, Appellant
v.
Ofelia E. Espinoza, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. C93-442C, HONORABLE JACK ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING
PER CURIAM

Appellant Keith Jackson attempts to appeal from a judgment of the trial court in favor of Ofelia E. Espinoza. Because appellant has failed to show grounds for continuing this appeal, we will dismiss it for want of prosecution. See former Tex. R. App. P. 60(a)(2). (1)

The Clerk of this Court received but did not file the clerk's record in this cause on May 14, 1997. By letter dated June 3, 1997, the Clerk notified appellant that the perfecting instrument, an affidavit of inability to pay, was deficient because notice of filing the instrument had not been served on the opposing party and the court reporter. See former Tex R. App. P. 40(a)(3)(A),(B). The Clerk requested that appellant tender a supplemental clerk's record in this Court containing proof of service by July 3, 1997. A second request was made on September 10, 1997.

In the interim, counsel for appellant withdrew from representation. The Clerk by letter dated October 23, 1997, notified appellant of counsel's withdrawal and informed him of the status of his cause on appeal. Once again, the Clerk requested that proof of timely service of notice on the aforementioned parties be provided in the form of a supplemental clerk's record no later than November 3, 1997. In the alternative, appellant was instructed to file an appeal bond in the amount of $1000 with the District Clerk of Comal County by that same date. See former Tex. R. App. P. 40(a)(3)(B). Thus far, neither the supplemental clerk's record nor a motion for extension of time to file the perfecting instrument have been tendered in this Court. Moreover, this Court has not received any response to its inquiries directed to appellant or his now former counsel.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution on our own motion. Former Tex. R. App. P. 60(a)(2).

 

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and Kidd

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: January 8, 1998

Do Not Publish

1. We note that the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure have been revised effective September 1, 1997. Because appellant attempted to perfect the appeal in this cause prior to the effective date, the former rules apply. In the absence of compliance with the rules of procedure, this appeal is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 60(a)(1).