Brenda Karyl Lee-Wilson v. Dorris Carlton Wilson, Jr. ( 2002 )

NO. 07-02-0239-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
DECEMBER 3, 2002
______________________________
BRENDA KAY W ILSON, APPELLANT
V.
DORRIS CARLTON W ILSON, JR., APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 316TH DISTRICT COURT OF HUTCHINSON COUNTY;
NO. 34,736; HONORABLE STEVEN R. EMMERT, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.*
OPINION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
The trial court rendered judgment in this cause in favor of appellee Dorris Carlton
W ilson, Jr. on February 25, 2002. Appellant timely filed her notice of appeal from that
Judgment and filed an indigence affidavit in connection with the appeal. A contest to the
indigence affidavit filed by the court reporter and appellee Dorris Carlton Wilson, Jr. was
*
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignm ent.
sustained by the trial court on June 14, 2002. Although appellant has filed an indigency
motion in this court, we are bound by the trial court’s fact finding.
Although four motions for extension of time for filing the clerk’s and reporter’s records
have been granted by this court, with the last such extension being granted to October 8,
2002, neither the clerk’s nor the reporter’s records have been filed because the necessary
deposits for the preparation of those records have not been made.
Both the trial court clerk and the court reporter are responsible for preparing,
certifying, and timely filing their records. Tex. R. App. P. 35.3. However, neither of them is
responsible for preparing and filing the record unless a timely notice of appeal has been filed
and satisfactory arrangements have been made to pay the fee for the preparation of the
record. Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)and (b); In re Marriage of Spiegel, 6 S.W.3d 643, 646
(Tex.App.–Am arillo 1999, no pet.).
Appellant’s failure to perform the steps necessary to obtaining a record for our perusal
after repeated extensions of time is indicative of a failure to adequately prosecute this
appeal. This is particularly true in view of the trial court’s ruling refusing to find she is
indigent.
Accordingly, this appeal must be and, it is hereby dism issed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),
42.3(c).
John T. Boyd
Senior Justice
Do not publish.