Malcolm Troy Earvin v. State

 

 

 

 

 

 

                             NUMBER 13-00-012-CV

 

                         COURT OF APPEALS

 

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

 

MALCOLM TROY EARVIN,                                         Appellant,

 

                                           v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                              Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

 

                  On appeal from the 157th District Court

                            of Harris County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

 

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

     Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Castillo and Garza

                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

 


Appellant, MALCOLM TROY EARVIN, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 157th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 9413942.  The clerk=s record was filed on April 7, 2000.  No reporter=s record was filed.  Appellant=s brief was due on or about May 8, 2003.  To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant=s failure to timely file a brief.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On June 17, 2005, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).  Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief.  To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court=s notice, and appellant=s failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.  The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 28th day of July, 2005