Alfred Kelly Goforth v. State

NUMBER 13-12-00724-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ GILBERT SALINAS, APPELLANT, v. BRANDI SALINAS, APPELLEE. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Gilbert Salinas, filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the 117th District Court of Nueces County, in cause number 2011-FAM-3109-B. On November 30, 2012, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that he was delinquent in remitting a $175.00 filing fee. On December 4, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on March 21, 2012, and that the deputy district clerk, Tiffany Garza, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. The notice was sent to appellant’s address by certified mail return receipt requested; however, the certified mail was returned as unclaimed and unable to forward. Subsequently, the Clerk of the Court sent the notice to appellant by regular mail on January 23, 2013. On January 23, 2013, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that he was delinquent in remitting a $175.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of receipt of this letter. See id. 42.3(b),(c). Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notices and has failed to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See id. PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 7th day of March, 2013. 2