Howard J. Stavinoha v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 182nd District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Howard J. Stavinoha v. State /**/

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-01-348-CR

 

HOWARD J. STAVINOHA,

Appellant

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

 

From the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court # 866,429

O P I N I O N

Howard J. Stavinoha pled guilty to aggravated assault. Pursuant to the State s plea recommendation, the trial court assessed Stavinoha s punishment at three years in prison. Stavinoha timely filed a notice of appeal stating his desire to complain of jurisdictional defects.

The clerk s record was filed on October 24, 2001. Stavinoha waived the making of a reporter s record. Thus, Stavinoha s brief was due on Monday, November 26, 2001. We notified counsel by letter dated December 17, 2001, that Stavinoha s brief was overdue. Counsel responded by filing a motion to withdraw on January 3, 2002. We denied counsel s motion on January 23 because it did not fully comply with the requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5. We have heard nothing since.

We abated this cause on February 13, 2002, to the trial court with instructions to hold a hearing to determine: (1) why no brief has been filed on Stavinoha s behalf; (2) whether his attorney has abandoned the appeal; and (3) whether Stavinoha has abandoned the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2).

The trial court held a hearing on April 25, 2002. Stavinoha s counsel appeared, but Stavinoha did not. The court learned from counsel that counsel s last contact with Stavinoha was in late October where Stavinoha called from the Montgomery County jail and wished to dismiss his appeal. Counsel sent Stavinoha a motion to dismiss to sign, but Stavinoha never returned it. Counsel no longer knows where Stavinoha is residing; the Montgomery County jail no longer has possession of him. Stavinoha s family believes he is in prison; however, prison officials claim he is not in the prison system. Counsel told the trial court he has abandoned the appeal for Stavinoha. After counsel s testimony, the trial court found that Stavinoha had abandoned his appeal.

It has now been over seven months since the clerk s record was filed.

Stavinoha has completely failed in his duty to prosecute this appeal, to contact this Court or his attorney, or to take any further action toward prosecuting this appeal. Under these circumstances, we conclude this appeal was not taken with the intention of pursuing it to completion, but instead was taken for the purposes of delay. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, under our inherent authority, for want of prosecution. Bush v. State, No. 10-01-160-CR (Tex. App. Waco June 12, 2002, no pet. h.); see also McDaniel v. State, No. 06-01-138-CR (Tex. App. Texarkana April 4, 2002, no pet. h.); Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1998, pet. ref d).

TOM GRAY

Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 19, 2002

Publish

[CR25]

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.