IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
OCTOBER 6, 2003
______________________________
JACKIE D. DILL AND VERGIE ERLENE DILL, APPELLANTS
V.
T.C. INVESTMENTS, II, L.L.C., SUCCESSOR
TO THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, APPELLEE_________________________________
FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 02-516,522; HONORABLE SAM MEDINA, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONAppellants Jackie D. Dill and Vergie Erlene Dill filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellee T.C. Investments, II, L.L.C., Successor to the Small Business Administration. The clerk's record has been filed. Appellants' brief was due to be filed on or before August 11, 2003, but has yet to be filed, and no motion for extension of time was filed. By letter dated September 9, 2003, this Court notified appellants' counsel, J.A. "Trey" Didway, of the defect and also directed him to reasonably explain the failure to file a brief together with a showing that appellee has not been significantly injured by the delay on or before September 19, 2003. Counsel did not respond and the brief remains outstanding.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with an order of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b) and (c).
Don H. Reavis
Justice
ber 7, 2005. Appellant pled not true to three of the nine alleged violations of community supervision but pled true to the remaining six violations. After hearing testimony, the trial judge found that appellant had committed six violations of his community supervision, revoked the order placing appellant on community supervision, and ordered that appellant serve the confinement portion of his sentence in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant's counsel has filed a brief, in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can arguably be predicated. Counsel thus concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel's brief discusses why, under the controlling authorities, there is no reversible error in the trial court proceedings and judgment. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).
Counsel has attached an exhibit showing that a copy of the Anders brief has been forwarded to appellant and that counsel has appropriately advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel's motion and brief. The clerk of this court has also advised appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel's brief. Appellant has not filed a response.
We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous grounds upon which an appeal could arguably be founded. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds.
Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.-Waco 1994, writ ref'd). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
1. This Court will follow the spelling of appellant's name as it appears in the trial court records.