Ex Parte: T. C.Appeal from 173rd District Court of Henderson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-13-00138-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS § APPEAL FROM THE 173RD § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT § HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS EX PARTE: T.C. MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). The record in this restricted appeal was filed on May 14, 2013, making Appellant s brief due on or before June 13, 2013.1 When Appellant failed to file its brief by June 13, 2013, this court notified Appellant on June 21, 2013 that the brief was past due. The notice warned that if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was received by July 1, 2013, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Further, the notice informed Appellant that the motion for extension of time must contain a reasonable explanation for its failure to file the brief and a showing that Appellee had not suffered material injury thereby. To date, Appellant has neither complied with nor otherwise responded to this court s June 13, 2013 notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Opinion delivered July 24, 2013. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) 1 The Texas Department of Public Safety is the appellant. COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JULY 24, 2013 NO. 12-13-00138-CV EX PARTE: T.C. Appeal from the 173rd Judicial District Court of Henderson County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 2012A-0888) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that since the appellant has filed no brief in this cause, the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution; and that this decision be certified to the trial court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. 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.