Jesus Cano Garcia v. Maria De Lourdes Garcia--Appeal from County Court at Law of Val Verde County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-06-00362-CV
Jesus Cano GARCIA,

Appellant
v.
Maria De Lourdes GARCIA,

Appellee
From the County Court at Law, Val Verde County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2168

Honorable Sergio J. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 20, 2006

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

The clerk's record was originally due June 23, 2006. On July 11, 2006, the trial court clerk filed a Notification of Late Record, stating that, although the record is complete, the clerk's record has not been filed because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the record and that appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. On July 19, 2006, this court ordered appellant to provide written proof that either (1) the clerk's fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk's fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk's fee. On July 24, 2006, appellant's attorney, Mr. Domingo Garcia, filed a letter with this court stating his client is indigent and "plans to file a[n] indigent affidavit."

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require "[a]n appellant [to] file the affidavit of indigence in the trial court with or before the notice of appeal." Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(1). Here, the notice of appeal was filed with the trial court on June 5, 2006. Therefore, appellant's affidavit of indigence was due on June 5, 2006. An extension of time to file the affidavit of indigence was due on June 20, 2006. Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(3). No extension was timely requested or granted. Because it appeared that appellant could not proceed without advance payment of costs, on August 1, 2006, this court ordered appellant to provide written proof that the clerk's fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk's fee. Our order informed appellant that if he failed to respond within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. SeeTex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b). No response has been received.

The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Costs of appeal are taxed against appellant.

PER CURIAM