07-05-0301-CR
07-05-0302-CR
07-05-0303-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
MAY 5, 2006
______________________________
JOSE GEORGE GONZALES, JR., APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________
FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NOS. 49,233-C, 49,234-C, 49,235-C, 50,082-C;
HONORABLE PATRICK A. PIRTLE, JUDGE _______________________________
Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ORDERAppellant, Jose George Gonzales, Jr. appeals his convictions and sentences of August 5, 2005. The trial court clerk's record was filed on October 3, 2005 and a supplemental trial court clerk's record was filed on October 11, 2005.
The trial court ordered the preparation of the reporter's record on August 22, 2005. This Court has granted four extensions to the court reporter. On April 17, 2006 this Court sent the court reporter a letter noting that the record had not been filed and requesting the status of the record by April 27, 2006. On that date this Court received a fifth request for extension of time to file the record.
Accordingly, we order Debby Murphy, official court reporter for the 251st District Court of Potter County, to transcribe and file with the Clerk of this Court a reporter's record as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and the trial court's order dated August 22, 2005 and encompassing cause numbers 49,233-C, 49, 234-C, 49,235-C and 50,082-C. The record shall include all argument, evidence and exhibits presented to the court during trial, as well as any pretrial and post-trial hearings conducted in said cause. We further order Debby Murphy to file the reporter's record in a manner by which it will be actually received by the Clerk of this Court on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 15, 2006. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no motion for extension of time will be considered.
Failure to file the reporter's record as directed by this Court's order may result in one or more of the following:
- A hearing requiring Debby Murphy to show cause why she should not be held in contempt;
(2) a complaint to the Court Reporter's Certification Board;
(3) appropriate sanctions; or
(4) abatement to the trial court for appropriate action.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
> (4) In addition, the order signed August 12, 2004, also included a provision dismissing Rodriguez's action against ICON Benefit Administrators, Inc. with prejudice.
By his sole point of error, Rodriguez contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of ICON Benefit Administrators. We disagree. Although Leza's motion sought a summary judgment as alternative relief, ICON did not file a motion seeking summary judgment or otherwise. Instead, according to the reporter's record of the hearing on August 6, 2004, noting that Rodriguez had attempted to join ICON without leave of the court contrary to Lubbock County local Rule 3.40(B)(2), the trial court ordered that Rodriguez's action against ICON be dismissed. The order signed by the court included a paragraph dismissing the suit against ICON.
Because a summary judgment was not rendered and Rodriguez does not present a point of error challenging the dismissal for misjoinder or otherwise, Rodriguez's sole point of error presents nothing for review and is overruled.
Accordingly, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
2. Rodriguez filed claims with both carriers, and both carriers paid for his medical expenses.
3. Counsel for Rodriguez acknowledged he received a copy of the motion approximately one month prior to the hearing, but that it was subsequently misfiled and was never placed on his calendar.
4. By this appeal, Rodriguez does not contend that the trial court erred in confirming the mediation agreement and dismissal of the case as to Leza.