Eric Williams v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 82nd District Court of Robertson County

Annotate this Case

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-95-037-CV

 

ERIC WILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

 

 

From the 82nd District Court

Robertson County, Texas

Trial Court # 94-06-14,649-CV

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

Eric Williams attempts to appeal from an order denying his appeal of a family law master's // child-support findings to the district court. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 54.012 (Vernon 1988) (recodified at Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 201.015 (Vernon Supp. Pamph. 1996)). The transcript was filed in this court on March 1, 1995, but no statement of facts has been filed. Tex. R. App. P. 54(a), 83. Although Williams' brief was due on April 1, no appellant's brief has been filed. Id. 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 his brief was due. We notified Williams of this defect by letter on October 24, 1995. Id. 60(a)(2), 83. Because he responded with a reasonable explanation, we extended the deadline for his brief to November 29. On the day after his brief was due, he filed a document entitled "In Lieu of Statement of Facts" in which he recited the facts as he understands them and listed "points of error." However, because this document does not qualify as a brief, we again warned him that his appeal might be dismissed if he failed to file a brief. Id. 60(a)(2), 74, 83. In response to this second notice, he filed a "motion to retain cause on docket," alleging that he intends to pursue "this cause of action" and that he believes that it will be disposed of in a reasonable length of time.

We conclude that Williams has failed to show grounds for continuing this appeal or to offer a reasonable explanation for his failure to file a brief. Therefore, we dismiss this cause for want of prosecution. Id. 74(l)(1).

PER CURIAM

 

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed January 3, 1996

Do not publish