In the Matter of W.A.S., a Juvenile--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County
Annotate this CaseIN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-96-120-CV
IN THE MATTER OF W.A.S., A JUVENILE,
Appellant
From the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court # 1005
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 18, 1996 the court found that W.A.S. had committed the offenses of aggravated robbery, theft and criminal mischief, indicating a need for supervision, and placed him on probation in the custody of his parents for two years. The court modified the disposition after W.A.S. was reported as a runaway, ordering him to attend a Boot Camp program. W.A.S. did not participate in the Boot Camp, and, after finding that his failure to cooperate in the program was a violation of the terms and conditions of his probation, the court committed him to the custody of the Texas Youth Commission until his twenty-first birthday. W.A.S. immediately filed a notice of appeal.
Appeals from juvenile proceedings are governed by the rules applicable to civil appeals generally. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 56.01 (Vernon 1996); In the Matter of S.D.G., 861 S.W.2d 106 (Tex. App. Waco 1993, no writ). A notice of appeal does not perfect an appeal in a juvenile case, rather W.A.S was required to file a cost bond or an affidavit of inability to pay costs. Tex. R. App. P. 40(a)(1); S.D.G., 861 S.W.2d at 106. Because he failed to file either, we do not have jurisdiction over his appeal. S.D.G., 861 S.W.2d at 107.
We are required to allow W.A.S. an opportunity to amend his notice of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 83; Linwood v. NCNB Texas, 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex. 1994). However, W.A.S. has filed a motion to withdraw his notice of appeal and dismiss this appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 59(a). We conclude that this motion evidences an intent to abandon the appeal. Thus, we will not wait for him to perform an act he has no intention of performing.
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Davis,
Justice Cummings, and
Justice Vance
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Opinion delivered and filed August 30, 1996
Do not publish
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.