IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
AUGUST 3, 2005
______________________________
ROY HAYES JOHNSON, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 48,928-E; HONORABLE DAVID GLEASON, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONFollowing a plea of not guilty, appellant Roy Hayes Johnson was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and punishment was assessed at 15 years confinement. Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on February 14, 2005, and the reporter's record was filed on April 4, 2005. The clerk's record has not been filed and three requests for extensions of time have been filed all indicating appellant has not paid nor made arrangements to pay for the clerk's record; the first two were granted, and the third filed on August 2, 2005, is rendered moot by our disposition today. By letter dated July 6, 2005, the Court requested that retained counsel, Ronald T. Spriggs, certify compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding the clerk's record by July 26, 2005, and also extended the deadline in which to file the clerk's record to August 1, 2005. Counsel was notified that failure to comply might result in dismissal per Rule 37.3(b). Counsel did not respond and the clerk's record has not been filed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with a directive of this Court.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
executed by the trial court do not disclose that she has a right to appeal from either order; rather they state that she waived same. By letter dated April 25, 2005, this court notified appellant of these circumstances and that the appeals were subject to dismissal. The court also requested that she either supply it with an amended certification illustrating that she has a right to appeal from the orders or inform us why we should continue the appeals. This was to be done by May 10, 2005. That deadline lapsed and we received neither a response nor amended certifications. Thus, we dismiss these appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d) (requiring that the appeal be dismissed if a certification that shows that the defendant has a right to appeal has not been made part of the record).
Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.