NUMBER 13-14-00570-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
JAMES WILKINS, Appellant,
v.
NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 105th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria
Order Per Curiam
Appellant, James Wilkins, appeals from an order of dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. He proceeds pro se and is incarcerated. This matter is currently
before the Court on motions filed by appellant and a notice filed by appellee, Nueces
County.
On October 23, 2014, this Court abated and remanded this matter to the trial court
for determinations regarding: (1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; (2)
whether appellant is indigent; (3) whether appellant is entitled to a free appellate record
due to his indigency; (4) whether exceptional circumstances exist such that appellant is
entitled to appointed counsel; and, (5) what orders, if any should be entered to assure the
filing of appropriate notices and documentation to dismiss appellant's appeal if appellant
does not desire to prosecute this appeal, or if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal,
to assure that the appeal will be diligently pursued.
On April 23, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on the requested matters. The
reporter’s record for this hearing was filed with this Court on May 5, 2015. The trial
court’s findings and conclusions have not yet been filed.
On March 6, 2015, after abatement, appellant filed a “motion for summary
judgment” seeking judgment to be rendered in his favor in this appeal.
On June 4, 2015, appellant requested that we allow him to proceed pro se on
appeal without the representation of counsel.
On June 17, 2015, Nueces County filed a notice with this Court stating that there
is currently no dispute between the parties regarding the issues submitted to the trial court
on abatement. Nueces County avers that the parties agree that appellant desires to
prosecute the appeal, that appellant is indigent and entitled to a free appellate record,
and that appellant has withdrawn his request for appointed counsel. Nueces County
thus asserts that “it appears that the parties are in agreement to have the abatement lifted
2
and to have the complete appellate record filed so that the appeal may proceed without
any additional delay.”
Accordingly, we REINSTATE the appeal. Our previous order requesting findings
and conclusions has been rendered moot. Appellant’s motion to appoint counsel, which
was previously carried with case, is DISMISSED as moot. We GRANT appellant’s
request to proceed pro se; however, we caution appellant to fully comply with the
requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. We DENY appellant’s motion
for summary judgment and will review the merits of this appeal based on full briefing by
the parties. To the extent that appellant’s pleadings seek further relief, any such relief is
DENIED. The clerk’s record and reporter’s records shall be filed without the necessity
of payment and this appeal shall proceed in due course.
It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
30th day of June, 2015.
3