The State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of M. W. J. Appeal from County Court at Law of Cherokee County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-18-00310-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE § APPEAL FROM THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION § COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF M.W.J. § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This accelerated appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). Appellant, M.W.J., perfected his appeal on November 7, 2018. The reporter’s record was filed on November 8 and the clerk’s record was filed on November 9. M.W.J.’s brief was due on or before December 2. On December 3, this Court notified M.W.J. that his brief was past due. We further notified M.W.J. that the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution unless a motion for extension of time, containing a reasonable explanation for the failure to file a brief and showing that Appellee has not suffered material injury thereby, is filed no later than December 13. The December 13 deadline expired and M.W.J. did not file a brief or a motion for extension of time. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Opinion delivered December 31, 2019. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT DECEMBER 31, 2019 NO. 12-18-00310-CV THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF M.W.J. Appeal from the County Court at Law of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 42,457) 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 for want of prosecution. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution; 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.
