Lee Andrew Johnson v. The State of Texas Appeal from 190th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued August 13, 2020 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00806-CV ——————————— LEE ANDREW JOHNSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 190th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2019-35067 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Lee Andrew Johnson, has neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145; TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; see also Tex. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.851(b), 101.041; Order Regarding Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158. On November 8, 2019, we issued a notice to appellant advising that this appeal was subject to dismissal if appellate costs were not paid, or indigence was established, by December 9, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(b), (c). After nearly nine months, appellant has not responded to the Court in any fashion. Appellant has also failed to timely file his brief. The clerk’s record was filed with the Court on December 9, 2019 and no reporter’s record was taken. As a result, appellant’s brief was due on January 8, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief). Appellant did not file a brief. Appellant was then notified by the Court on January 13, 2020 that this appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant’s brief was not received by January 21, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for want of prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply with order of this Court). Again, this time after more than six months, appellant has not responded to the Court in any fashion. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Hightower and Adams. 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.
