Leenoris Barnes v. Shuntia Wheeler Appeal from County Court at Law of Houston County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-14-00227-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS LEENORIS BARNES, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW SHUNTIA WHEELER, APPELLEE § HOUSTON 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). On December 29, 2014, Appellant, Leenoris Barnes, filed his brief. On the same date, Barnes was notified that his brief did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3) and 38.1(a)-(k). Barnes was also informed that the appeal would be dismissed unless, on or before January 19, 2015, he filed an amended brief along with a motion for extension of time, (1) containing a reasonable explanation for his failure to timely file a brief in strict compliance with Rule 38.8 and (2) showing that Appellee, Shuntia Wheeler, has not suffered material injury thereby. The January 19, 2015 deadline has now passed, and Barnes has neither filed an amended brief nor otherwise responded to this Court’s notice. Because Barnes has failed, after notice, to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3) and 38.1(a)-(k), the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Opinion delivered January 30, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JANUARY 30, 2015 NO. 12-14-00227-CV LEENORIS BARNES, Appellant V. SHUNTIA WHEELER, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law of Houston County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 14CCL-102) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
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.
