Martha D. Benitez v. Morris Dick and Carolina G. Dick--Appeal from Probate Court No 1 of El Paso County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARTHA D. BENITEZ,

Appellant,

v.

MORRIS DICK AND CAROLINA G. DICK,

Appellees.

No. 08-04-00023-CV

Appeal from the

Probate Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2001-G-00005)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The record for this case was due on April 15, 2004. On April 6, 2004, the trial court clerk notified this Court that Appellant had not made arrangements to pay for the record. On the same day, we directed Appellant to inform us immediately regarding the arrangements she had made or intended to make to have the clerk s record prepared. We further advised Appellant that if the clerk did not file the record or a request for additional time by the due date, it would appear to the Court that Appellant no longer wishes to pursue this appeal. Accordingly, we stated our intent to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless we timely received the clerk s record or a request for additional time or unless any party could show grounds for continuing the appeal within ten days from the due date for the record.

On April 16, 2004, we received a document from Appellant entitled Complaint and Question the Guardianship, Appealing and Ask for an Extension, and Filing a Memorandum or Writ of Mandamus. In this document, Appellant stated that she requested an extension until the State could drop certain criminal charges against her sister. We therefore construed the document as a motion for extension of time to file the record. On May 4, 2004, we received from Appellant another document, which we construed as a supplement to the motion for extension of time. In this document, Appellant requested an extension of time in order to prepare pro se adequately or until retiredd [sic] Senator H. Tati Santiesteban enters an order as my legal counsel . . . [and] to properly familiarize myself with the pro se rules of law and to prepare adequately for the jury trial. On July 29, 2004, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

To this date, neither the record nor a further notification from the trial court clerk has been filed. Moreover, Appellant has not informed this Court that she has made arrangements to pay for the record, and no attorney has entered an appearance on Appellant s behalf. The documents received in this Court on April 16 and May 4 do not explain why Appellant has not made arrangements to pay for the record, nor do they state adequate grounds for continuing the appeal. Therefore, on the Court s own motion, and pursuant to our notice of April 6, 2004, this appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant s Complaint and Question the Guardianship, Appealing and Ask for an Extension, and Filing a Memorandum or Writ of Mandamus, construed in this Court as a motion for extension of time to file the record is denied. Appellees motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

SUSAN LARSEN, Justice

August 26, 2004

Before Panel No. 1

Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.