Jay Gid Bryan v. State

NO. 07-08-0174-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 29, 2008

______________________________

JAY GID BRYAN, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 242^nd DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. B 14776-0301; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

          Jay Gid Bryan filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him guilty of endangering a child, revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to two years confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The reporter’s record and clerk’s record have been filed. Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on June 20, 2008, but has not yet been filed. By letter dated July 3, this Court notified appellant’s retained attorney of the failure and also explained that if no response was received by July 14, the appeal would be abated pursuant to Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. On July 8, we received a document wherein counsel explained he was never retained or appointed to represent appellant on appeal. On August 19, we abated this appeal to the trial court and ordered the trial court to utilize whatever means necessary to determine: (1) whether appellant truly desires to prosecute the appeal; and (2) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel.

          The trial court conducted a hearing on September 5, 2008, and issued the following findings: (1) a representative of appellant’s bondsman appeared, asking that a warrant be issued for appellant because he had failed to comply with the conditions of his contract; appellant’s bond was reset and a warrant was issued for appellant’s arrest; (2) appellant’s case was first called at 1:00 p.m. and appellant failed to appear; (3) appellant’s case was called again at 1:04 p.m. and 2:10 p.m. and each time, no one responded; (4) appellant is a fugitive; (5) the trial court is unable to determine if appellant truly desires to prosecute the appeal; and (6) the trial court is unable to determine if appellant is indigent.

          Accordingly, the appeal is abated pending further order of the Court.

          It is so ordered.

 

                                                                           Per Curiam

 

Do not publish.

ked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>

  NO. 07-10-0038-CV

 

                                                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 

                                       FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

                                                                 AT AMARILLO

 

                                                                     PANEL D

 

                                                                APRIL 12, 2010

                                            ______________________________

 

                                                    ROBERT DAVID JACKSON,

 

Appellant

 

                                                                            V.

 

JESSICA LEA GRAY,

 

Appellee

______________________________

 

                     FROM THE 46th DISTRICT COURT OF WILBARGER COUNTY;

 

                                  NO. 25,112; HON. DAN MIKE BIRD, PRESIDING

                                            ______________________________

 

                                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                            ______________________________

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Robert David Jackson perfected this appeal on January 25, 2010.  The appellate record was due on or about March 12, 2010.  Both the district clerk and court reporter have filed motions to extend the time to file their records because appellant apparently failed to pay or make arrangements to pay for them, as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(1)(2) and 35.3(b)(3).  By letter dated March 29, 2010, we directed appellant to certify to this court, by April 8, 2010, that he had complied with rule of procedure 35.3(a)(1)(2) and 35.3(b)(3).  So too was he informed that failure to meet that deadline would result in the dismissal of his appeal.  To date, this court has not received either the clerk=s record, the reporter=s record, or notification that the records have been paid for or that arrangements have been made for payment.  Nor has this court received any request to postpone the dismissal date.  Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 

 

Per Curiam