IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-07-00158-CV
Apparajan Ganesan,
Appellant
v.
Becky Tibbs, Cody Ginsel, Cynthia
Woods, Jason Manuel, Jose Garcia,
Appellees
From the 12th District Court
Walker County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23300
ORDER
This order is in response to your telephone calls and correspondence after your appeal was dismissed. The letter you have referenced in those calls and correspondence, dated October 15, 2008, was received by the Court on November 6, 2008. The October letter does not have an effect on your dismissal. Your appeal was dismissed because you failed to comply with an order from the Court and from the Clerk. Although the Court does not normally provide this to a party, a history of your non-compliance is detailed below.
In a motion filed by you last year, the Court learned that you were expected to be released from prison on November 12, 2008. The Court decided to abate the appeal until 60 days after your release date, that being, January 12, 2009, so that you had the chance to get organized after your release before continuing with this appeal. The Court told you that unless we were informed of a different release date, we would automatically reinstate the appeal on January 12, 2009. The Court was not informed of a different release date, and the appeal was reinstated.
Pursuant to the abatement order, you were ordered to provide to this Court by February 2, 2009 and serve on all parties to this proceeding notice of your address for receiving notices and service of documents related to this proceeding. The letter dated October 15, 2008 was not considered by the Court as the notice required by the abatement order, primarily because it was received by the Court prior to your release from prison and because the Court was not informed that this address was the address for receiving notice and service of documents related to your appeal. You were also ordered to inform the Court by February 2, 2009 what motions on file needed to be resolved and what other issues needed to be addressed prior to the start of the briefing schedule. You did not comply with the order.
Instead of complying with the abatement order, you filed a “Request to extend time limits.” In the request, you gave no reason why you could not provide an address for receiving notices and service of documents. An address was included in the signature block and proof of service of the request, but you did not state that this was the address for receiving notices and service of documents. Further, you did not reference the letter dated October 15, 2008 or state that the letter would serve as your notice in compliance with the abatement order.
It also appeared from your motion that you could not inform the Court what motions on file needed to be resolved and what other issues needed to be addressed because you had no driver’s license and could not go to the law library or meet with counsel. In ruling on your request, the Court noted that, according to the Court’s records, you were not represented by counsel in this appeal. Further, the Court found that your other reasons for not complying with the Court’s order were unacceptable. Your request was denied.
In that denial, the Court ordered you to do two things. First, you were ordered to:
[o]n or before April 21, 2009, … provide to this Court and serve on all parties to this proceeding notice of his address for receiving notices and service of documents related to this proceeding. If appellant fails to provide the address as ordered herein, this proceeding may be dismissed without further notice. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).
Second, you were ordered to
[o]n or before April 21, 2009, … inform the Court what motions on file need to be resolved and what other issues need to be addressed prior to the start of the briefing schedule. If appellant does not inform the Court as to what motions or issues need to be resolved or addressed, appellant’s brief will be due May 5, 2009.
You did not fully comply with either of these directives.
Instead, you presented a Motion to Correct the Court Records. In the motion, you complained about missing exhibits, a 2-3 hour break that was not recorded by the court reporter, and the “completely random” manner in which the clerk’s record was assembled. You provided no notice of your address for receiving notices and service of documents related to this proceeding. Again, an address was included in the signature block, but you did not state that this was the address for receiving notices and service of documents. Again, you did not reference the letter dated October 15, 2008 or state that the letter would serve as your notice in compliance with the abatement order. Additionally, you did not inform the Court what motions currently on file needed to be resolved.
You did not comply with the Court’s and the Clerk’s orders. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). For these reasons, your appeal was dismissed.
The Court extended to you more opportunities to cure procedural irregularities than it does to most litigants. Your numerous and frequent departures from the rules consumed an excessive amount of the Court’s resources. At some point, your failure to comply with the rules and orders of the Court can be construed as a willful departure and an indication that your claim lacks merit. But the Court, nonetheless, continued to try to work with you until you failed to respond as described herein. Your appeal has not been reinstated and the Court has found no reason or basis to do so during its plenary power.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Order issued and filed May 27, 2009
n style='text-decoration:none'>
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully prays that this Honorable Court REVERSE the Judgments and Sentences of the Trial Court below; and, REMAND the Causes to the Trial Court for a new hearing on the allegations set out in the State’s Motions to revoke Appellant’s Community Supervision.
There are many reasons why Lasher’s issue is overruled. First, no alleged error is preserved. No objection was made to the alleged incident by either party. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Further, the record does not show that the trial court missed any testimony at all. It is clear from the record that the witness had not begun her answer to the question proposed. And, after the court replied “what?,” Lasher’s counsel summarized what he had asked the witness. The witness then answered the question. At best, the record only shows a momentary lack in concentration by the court.
Second, the issue is inadequately briefed and presents nothing for review. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); see Johnson v. State, 263 S.W.3d 405 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. ref’d). Lasher cites to one case for the proposition that the touchstone of due process is fundamental fairness. He fails to explain how this or any other case supports his argument that he was denied due process by the trial court’s alleged action. Even if this was a novel argument made by Lasher for which there was no authority directly on point, Lasher must still provide relevant authority suggesting how the court’s alleged action violated Lasher’s due process rights. See Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d. 707, 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
Third, even if the trial court’s alleged action was error, a result we expressly do not hold, Lasher fails to show that he was harmed. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2. In addition to pleading not true to some of the State’s allegations, Lasher pled true to many of the State’s allegations of violations of his community supervision alleged in both its motion to revoke and its motion to adjudicate. Because a plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of probation, Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979), Lasher could not have been harmed by the trial court’s alleged action.
Accordingly, Lasher’s sole issue is overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed September 1, 2010
Do not publish
[CRPM]