The State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of W. G.--Appeal from County Court at Law of Cherokee County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 12th District Court of Appeals » 2009 » The State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of W. G.--Appeal from County Court at Law of Cherokee County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 12-08-00344-CV

Case Date: 11/12/2009

Plaintiff: Carol Johnene Morris

Defendant: Jerry Bundick, Chief Appraiser et al--Appeal from 238th District Court of Midland County

Preview:Carol Johnene Morris v. Jerry Bundick, Chief
Appraiser et al--Appeal from 238th District Court of
Midland County
Opinion filed August 14, 2008
Opinion filed August 14, 2008
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
No. 11-08-00077-CV
CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS, Appellant
V.
JERRY BUNDICK, CHIEF APPRAISER ET AL, Appellees
On Appeal from the 238th District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CV46225
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On February 19, 2008, Carol Johnene Morris filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court=s orders granting
summary judgment and a dismissal. On the same day, Morris filed an affidavit of indigency. On February 22, 2008,
the court reporter filed a timely contest to Morris=s claim of indigence. The trial court conducted a hearing relating to
indigence and sustained the contest on March 3, 2008. By letter dated May 8, 2008, the clerk of this court notified
Morris that she Amust make arrangements for paying for the Clerk=s Record and Reporter=s Record and file a
Designation of Clerk=s Record@ in this cause. In the letter, we notified Morris that, if proof of payment and
designation were not received in this court by May 23, 2008, her appeal would be subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex.
R. App. P. 37.3(b). See also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.
To date, Morris has not made arrangements to pay for the record and continues to reiterate her entitlement to a free
record.[1] In response to our letter, Morris contends that the contest was untimely. We disagree. With respect to this
appeal, the contest was filed three days after Morris=s notice of appeal and affidavit of indigency and, thus, was timely
under Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(e). The hearing and order were also timely pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(i). Contrary to
Morris=s contention, the affidavit of indigency with respect to this appeal does not relate back to the affidavit of
indigency that she filed pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 145 on November 5, 2007.
Because Morris has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the trial court clerk to prepare the clerk=s record and
because Morris has failed to comply with an order of this court, we are authorized to dismiss this appeal pursuant to
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9111.html[8/20/2013 7:30:56 PM]

Rules 37.3(b) and 42.3.
The appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
August 14, 2008
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.
[1]We note that, on this same day in Cause No. 11-08-00124-CV, we have affirmed an earlier order sustaining
contests to Morris=s claim of indigence relating to a separate appeal, Cause No. 11-08-00013-CV.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9111.html[8/20/2013 7:30:56 PM]

Download 9111.pdf