Harold Curtis Biddie v. Deika A. Pool--Appeal from 87th District Court of Anderson County

NO. 12-06-00056-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

HAROLD CURTIS BIDDIE, APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

DEIKA A. POOL,

APPELLEE ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). The judgment in the instant case was signed on February 8, 2006. Thereafter, on February 21, 2006, Appellant filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information required by Rule 25.1 (e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court s judgment.

On March 10, 2006, Appellant was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rule 25.1(e). He was further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before April 10, 2005, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

On April 3, 2005, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal. The amended notice of appeal did not show service on all parties to the trial court s judgment. Appellant also informed this court that he filed a criminal complaint against Appellee and the trial court used its own discretion and made the complaint a civil matter. In his docketing statement, Appellant states that he filed an Application to File Criminal Action. A criminal action is not initiated in this manner. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 2.04, 2.05 (Vernon 2005). Therefore, the trial court properly

considered the proceeding a civil matter. As such, Appellant was required to comply with Rule 25.1(e) when he filed his notice of appeal.

Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to correct his defective notice of appeal, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, No. 12-04-0004-CV, 2004 WL 252785, at *1 (Tex. App. Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied); Feist v. Hubert, 12-03-00442-CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App. Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied).

Opinion delivered April 5, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)