NUMBER 13-15-00361-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MANUEL BENAVIDES,
DECEASED
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. Two
of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Sonya B. Rodriguez, proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal
from an order allegedly removing her as the independent executrix of the estate of Manuel
Benavides, deceased. Upon review of the clerk’s record, it appeared that the record
failed to contain any such order. On August 10, 2015, 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. 37.1, 42.3(a),(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 jurisdiction. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.
On August 27, 2015, the Clerk notified appellant that her notice of appeal did not
comply with the appellate rules and requested correction of the defects. See Tex. R.
App. P. 9.5(e), 25.1(d). The Clerk also advised appellant that the clerk’s record did not
include the order she was attempting to appeal. The Clerk directed the appellant to
request the county clerk to prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the signed
order subject to appeal. The Clerk advised appellant that if a supplemental record
containing the order was not filed, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has failed
to correct the defects or file a supplemental clerk’s record containing an appealable order.
Appellee, Roberto Benavides, has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal based
on the foregoing events. Accordingly, the Court, having considered the documents on
file and appellant's failure to correct the defects in this matter, is of the opinion that
appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, appellee’s
motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED AND the appeal is DISMISSED. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3(b),(c). Pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
10th day of December, 2015.
2