In the Matter of the Marriage of Charlotte P. Soliz and Jesse (Jesus) Soliz and in the Interest of M.R.S., a Child Appeal from 94th District Court of Nueces County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-15-00482-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CHARLOTTE P. SOLIZ AND JESSE (JESUS) SOLIZ AND IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.S., A CHILD ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam The appellant's brief in the above cause was originally due on January 6, 2016. Appellant has previously requested and received two prior extensions of time to file the brief. On May 31, 2016, this Court ordered the appellate brief to be filed on or before July 7, 2016. The order notified counsel that further motions for extension of time would not be favorably entertained by the Court. On July 14, 2016 and September 13, 2016, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of this letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. To date, no response has been received from appellant. Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a motion for extension of time to file his brief, or file his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 13th day of October, 2016. 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.
