Daniel N. Johnson, as Independent of the Tommye C. Stringfield Estate v. Russell Driver, as Trustee of the Billie Holcomb Living Trust

PER CURIAM HEADING

                                                                                    NO. 12-05-00179-CV

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT


TYLER, TEXAS

DANIEL N. JOHNSON, AS                              §                 APPEAL FROM THE

INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE

TOMMYE C. STRINGFIELD ESTATE,

APPELLANT

V.                                                                         §                 COUNTY COURT AT LAW


RUSSELL DRIVER, AS TRUSTEE OF

THE BILLIE HOLCOMB LIVING TRUST,

APPELLEE                                                        §                 HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

                                                                                                                                                            

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. Pursuant to Rule 32.1, Appellant’s docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., May 2, 2005. See Tex. R. App. P. 32.1. On June 3, 2005, this Court requested that Appellant file the docketing statement in the appeal if he had not already done so. However, Appellant did not file a docketing statement.

            On June 16, 2005, this Court issued a second notice advising Appellant that the docketing statement was past due. The notice also advised Appellant that the filing fee was due to have been paid on or before June 13, 2005, but had not been received. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. The notice further provided that unless the docketing statement and filing fee were filed on or before June 27, 2005, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with Rule 42.3. The time for filing the docketing statement and paying the filing fee has expired, and Appellant has not complied with the Court’s request. Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 5 and Rule 32.1, the appeal is dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.39(c).

Opinion delivered June 30, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(PUBLISH)