El-Hadi T. Shabazz v. The State Bar of Texas--Appeal from 74th District Court of McLennan County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-95-096-CV

EL-HADI T. SHABAZZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 74th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 93-1251-3

MEMORANDUM OPINION

El-Hadi Shabazz appealed from a judgment that disbarred him, ordered him to surrender his law license and permanent State Bar card to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar, and prohibited him from holding himself out as an attorney capable of practicing law. Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct 8.04(a)(3) (1994), reprinted in Tex. Gov't Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A (Vernon Supp. 1995) (State Bar Rules art. X, 9); Tex. R. Disciplinary P. 3.11 (1994), reprinted in Tex. Gov't Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A-1 (Vernon Supp. 1995). The transcript was filed in this court on May 11, 1995. No Statement of Facts has been filed. Although Shabazz's brief was due on June 12, no appellant's brief has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 5(a), 74(k). On October 11, the Bar filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. Id. 60(a)(1), 74(l)(1). 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 Shabazz's brief was due. The Bar's motion suffices as notice to him that his brief is severely overdue. Id. 83. He has not responded to the Bar's motion with grounds for continuing the appeal or a reasonable explanation for failing to file a brief. Therefore, we grant the Bar's motion to dismiss. Id. 60(a)(1), 74(l)(1).

This appeal is dismissed for want of prosection. Id.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed October 25, 1995

Do not publish