L. Patrick Davis d/b/a Areawide Bail Bonds v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 249th District Court of Johnson County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-01-312-CR

L. PATRICK DAVIS

D/B/A AREAWIDE BAIL BONDS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 249th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court # B200100002

MEMORANDUM OPINION

L. Patrick Davis d/b/a Areawide Bail Bonds appeals from a judgment forfeiting a $25,000 appearance bond on which he was the surety.

The clerk s record was filed in this Court on October 9, 2001, and the reporter s record was filed in its entirety on December 3. // Davis filed an agreed motion for an extension of time to file his brief on January 2, 2002, stating that the parties had arranged a meeting whereby this case may be settled and all issues resolved. We granted this motion and extended the deadline for the filing of Davis s brief to February 4.

Davis requested an additional extension by motion filed on February 11. We granted this motion on February 13. We extended the deadline to March 6. Davis filed an unopposed extension request on March 6. He asked for an extension of sixty days to allow the parties to settle their dispute. We granted the request only in part. We extended the deadline to April 8 and notified Davis that further extensions would be disfavored.

Davis filed another extension request on April 29. He requested an additional thirty days to file his brief. We granted the request only in part. We notified Davis that his brief was due by May 13 and warned him that if it was not filed by that time, this appeal w[ould] be dismissed for want of prosecution. To date, no appellant s brief has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a).

Appellate Rule 38.8(a)(1) provides that if an appellant fails to timely file his brief, the Court may:

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant s failure to timely file a brief.

Id. 38.8(a)(1). //

More than four months have passed since Davis s brief was originally due. We warned him that the appeal would be dismissed if he failed to file his brief by May 13. Id. 42.3(b), 38.8(a)(1). Davis has failed to comply. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. 38.8(a)(1).

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed May 22, 2002

Do not publish

[CV06]