IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
AUGUST 18, 2004
______________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF SHARON MARIE SAYES AND EMMETT CARL SAYES AND IN THE INTEREST OF C.M.S. AND B.M.S., CHILDREN _________________________________
FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;
NO. 48,847-B; HONORABLE JOHN B. BOARD, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONOn July 27, 2004, appellant, Emmett Sayes, filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). The motion includes a certificate of conference indicating that appellee is not opposed to the motion. No response to the motion has been received.
Accordingly, without passing on the merits of the case, appellant's Motion to Dismiss is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Rule 42.1(a).
All costs are assessed to appellant. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Phil Johnson
Chief Justice
that appeal, she has filed a motion seeking permission to prosecute this appeal as an indigent and an affidavit of indigence. We overrule her motion.
The order from which appeal is brought was rendered June 21, 2001. Appellant filed her notice of appeal on June 27, 2001. She did not file her affidavit of indigence or motion to proceed as an indigent until July 9, 2001. No contest to that affidavit was filed.
A party's right to proceed as an indigent is governed by Rule 20.1 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Section (c)(1) of that rule provides that in an appeal, the affidavit of indigence must be filed "with or before the notice of appeal." This requirement has been construed strictly, even precluding the filing of an affidavit with an amended notice of appeal. Ford v. Whitehead, 2 S.W.3d 304, 306 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1999, no writ). We find the deadline for filing an affidavit of indigence set out in Rule 20.1(c) is mandatory and its subsequent filing is ineffective. Moreover, appellant's affidavit does not fully comply with Rule 20.1 in that it does not recite the amount of costs she could pay, Rule 20.1(b), or her ability to obtain a loan for the costs, Rule 20.1(b)(9). Appellant's motion is overruled.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.