Belinda Caceres v. Donaldo Caceres Appeal from 311th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued June 2, 2022 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-21-00550-CV ——————————— BELINDA CACERES, Appellant V. DONALDO CACERES, Appellee On Appeal from the 311th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2019-44792 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Belinda Caceres, has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief). On October 6, 2021, appellant timely filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s July 20, 2021 dismissal order.1 The appellate record was due to be filed by November 17, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1. The clerk’s record was filed with the Clerk of this Court on November 12, 2021. On November 17, 2021, the court reporter notified the Court that there was no reporter’s record for this case. Accordingly, appellant’s brief was due to be filed on or before December 17, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), (d). However, no brief was filed. On December 21, 2021, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that this appeal was subject to dismissal unless a brief, or motion to extend time to file a brief, was filed within ten days of the Clerk’s notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply with notice from Clerk). Despite the Clerk’s notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant failed to file a brief or otherwise respond to the December 21, 2021 notice. 1 After the trial court signed its dismissal order, appellant timely filed a motion to reinstate, thereby extending the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to ninety days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). 2 On May 11, 2022, appellant was again notified by the Clerk of the Court that this appeal was subject to dismissal unless appellant filed a brief within ten days of the date of the Clerk’s notice. Appellant has not adequately responded. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Landau, Guerra, and Farris. 3
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.
