Jimmy Lee Hickson v. David Moya--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-95-092-CV

JIMMY LEE HICKSON,

Appellant

v.

DAVID MOYA,

Appellee

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 29,255

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jimmy Hickson appealed from the court's dismissal of his in forma pauperis petition. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 13.001 (Vernon Supp. 1995). Hickson filed a notice of appeal on April 28, 1995, and the transcript was filed in this court on May 4. Although his brief was due on June 5, no appellant's brief has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 5(a), 74(k). Appellate Rule 74(l)(1) provides:

Civil Cases. In civil cases, when the appellant has failed to file his brief in the time prescribed, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless reasonable explanation is shown for such failure and that appellee has not suffered material injury thereby. The court may, however, decline to dismiss the appeal, whereupon it shall give such direction to the cause as it may deem proper.

Id. 74(l)(1).

More than thirty days have passed since Hickson's brief was due. We notified him of this defect by letter on July 6. See id. 60(a)(2), 83. He responded to our letter, claiming that we failed to notify him of the due date for his brief. However, under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the due date for an appellant's brief runs from the filing of the transcript, or, if a statement of facts is necessary to the appeal, from the filing of the statement of facts. See id. 74(k). "Litigants who represent themselves must comply with the applicable procedural rules . . . ." Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex. 1978); Levada Hughes and Occupants v. Habitat, 880 S.W.2d 5, 9 (Tex. App. Dallas 1992, no writ); Stum v. Stum, 845 S.W.2d 407, 414 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1992, no writ). Thus, his claim is not a reasonable explanation for failing to file a brief.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(l)(1).

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed July 19, 1995

Do not publish