NO. 07-07-0124-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
OCTOBER 3, 2007
______________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF M.E.R. AND Z.C.R., CHILDREN
_________________________________
FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. 8901A24508; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Paul McDaniel, father of M.E.R. and Z.C.R., filed notice of appeal from an order
confirming a child support arrearage. The trial court clerk's record was filed in this Court
on June 7, 2007. A reporter’s record was never filed. By letter of June 21, 2007, this Court
directed McDaniel to certify by July 2, 2007, that he had requested and made satisfactory
payment arrangements for the reporter’s record. The letter contained notice that failure
to comply might result in the Court setting the deadline for his brief. Tex. R. App. P.
37.3(c). McDaniel made no response. By letter of July 19, 2007, this Court notified
McDaniel that his appellate brief was due August 23, 2007. On July 23, 2007, this Court
received a letter from McDaniel, briefly arguing why he should be excused from paying the
child support arrearage confirmed by the trial court. By letter of July 30, 2007, this Court
notified McDaniel that his letter, if intended as an appellate brief, did not comply with the
rules of appellate procedure, and reminded him that his brief was due August 23. Tex. R.
App. P. 38.1. A copy of Rule 38.1 was included in this correspondence. McDaniel filed
no additional documents. By letter of September 10, 2007, this Court notified him that his
appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless his brief was filed, along
with a motion for extension of time, by September 20, 2007. Again, McDaniel made no
response.
An appellate court may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution if an appellant
fails to timely file a brief unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the
appellee is not significantly injured by the failure. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(a)(1). On its own
motion, with ten days notice to the parties, an appellate court may dismiss an appeal for
want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response
or other action within a specified time. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c). Here the record reveals
appellant McDaniel has not timely filed a brief and has given us no reason for his failure
to do so, despite notice requiring its filing by a specified date. We further find the Court
has given the parties the required ten days notice.
Accordingly, we now dismiss McDaniel’s appeal for want of prosecution and failure
to comply with a directive of the Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b),(c).
James T. Campbell
Justice
2