IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-06-00022-CR
Mike McKenna d/b/a
Bondman Bail Bonds,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 18th District Court
Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court No. B200100026
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Mike McKenna, d/b/a Bondman Bail Bonds, filed a notice of appeal on January 5, 2006, from a judgment on a special bill of review apparently rendered on October 7, 2005. There is no such judgment contained in the record.
McKenna also noted in his docketing statement that a Rule 306a motion was filed with the trial court which would extend the time to file his notice of appeal. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a; Tex. R. App. P. 4.2. No such motion is contained in the record. Without a motion which would extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, McKenna’s appeal is untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 4.2.
The Clerk of this Court notified McKenna by letter of these deficiencies and warned that the Court may dismiss the appeal unless, within 21 days a response is filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, 44.3. The Clerk also warned McKenna that the failure to file a timely response to the letter may also result in dismissal of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). McKenna has not filed a response.
Additionally, McKenna was instructed by letter to pay the filing fee of $125 in this appeal when it was filed. No fee was paid. On February 10, 2006, McKenna was informed by letter that the payment of the filing fee was past due. McKenna was also warned that if the filing fee was not paid within ten days, the appeal would be presented to the Court for dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). As of today, McKenna has not paid the filing fee.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Justice Vance concurs with a note)*
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed March 15, 2006
Do not publish
[CV06]
* “(Justice Vance concurs with a note: I join the opinion only to the extent of dismissing for failure to pay the filing fee. The suggested deficiencies in the record are among the enumerated items in Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(a), and should have been included by the trial court clerk. We should not dismiss for a procedural defect that can be corrected. Verburgt. v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. 1997) (“This Court has never wavered from the principle that appellate courts should not dismiss an appeal for a procedural defect whenever any arguable interpretation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure would preserve the appeal.”))”
e="font-size: 12pt">[CV06]