FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
OCTOBER 1, 2002
______________________________
BETTY ANN NEWBY, APPELLANT
V.
DAN MOSER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE; MOSER INVESTMENTS;
THE ESTATE OF LON MOSER, DECEASED; AND SHERIA EVANS, APPELLEES_________________________________
FROM THE 84TH DISTRICT COURT OF HUTCHINSON COUNTY;
NO. 34,920; HONORABLE WILLIAM D. SMITH, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ. and BOYD, S.J. (1)
DISMISSALAppellant Betty Ann Newby filed a notice of appeal challenging numerous orders of the trial court. On June 26, 2002, the trial court sustained the contest filed by two court reporters to Newby's affidavit of indigence. On July 30, 2002, Newby filed a pro se document in this Court seeking an extension of time on behalf of the trial court clerk contending that the trial court clerk should not be permitted to request payment for the record because she did not file a contest to her affidavit of indigence. However, because the motion was not accompanied by the required filing fee, no ruling will be made regarding that motion.
By letter dated September 13, 2002, this Court notified Newby to make satisfactory arrangements to pay for the clerk's record within ten days or the appeal would be subject to dismissal. Although the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure now impose the duty of filing the record with the trial court clerk, Newby must pay the clerk's fee or make satisfactory arrangements with the clerk to pay the fee. Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2). Pursuant to Rule 37.3(b), this Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution if, due to appellant's fault, the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk's record. Furthermore, under Rule 42.3(c) this Court may dismiss an appeal, after giving ten days notice, for Newby's failure to comply with a notice from the Clerk requiring a response within a specified time.
Accordingly, because Newby did not comply with this Court's directive, the appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b) & (c). Our disposition of this appeal renders the motion for extension of time filed by the court reporter moot.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
1.
though not necessarily at the same time, and 5) Hensley referred to appellant by his nickname "Weiner."
The jury was instructed it could find appellant guilty if it believed he acted as a party to the robbery. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §7.02(a)(2) (Vernon 2003) (one acts as a party when, with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicited, encouraged, directed, aided, or attempted to aid in committing the offense). The foregoing litany of evidence was enough to permit a rational jury to reasonably conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant aided Hensley with the intent to promote or assist in the robbery. And that the stories of Hensley and appellant differed did little more than create fact disputes and credibility issues for the jury to resolve. Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Moreover, the evidence indicative of guilt was not so weak or minuscule to undermine our confidence in the verdict. So, we conclude that the verdict was supported by both legally and factually sufficient evidence.
The judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.