in Re Estate of Robert B. Sneed ( 2005 )

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-05-00316-CV

In re Estate of Robert B. Sneed

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

          Charles Harris, appellant, did not pay the original filing fee for his appeal and did not timely file an affidavit of indigence.  See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(c)(1).  The Clerk of this Court notified Harris by letter that a $125 filing fee was due within 10 days from the date of the letter to prevent dismissal of his appeal. 

          More than 10 days have passed, and we have received no notice of Harris’s compliance with the Clerk’s directive.  

          Harris’s appeal is dismissed.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); see Gordon v. Gordon, 167 S.W.3d 61 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.).

          Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing.  Tex. R. App. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to Tex. R. App. P., Order Regarding Fees (July 21, 1998).  See also Tex. R. App. P. 5; 10th Tex. App. (Waco) Loc. R. 6; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 51.207(b) and 51.901 (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005).  Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees that are currently owed by Harris in this case.  Tex. R. App. P. 2. 

                                                                   TOM GRAY

                                                                   Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

          Justice Vance, and

          Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 21, 2005

[CV06]

160;

MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury convicted Harry Parrish of assaulting two correctional officers. Parrish pleaded “true” to an enhancement allegation, and the jury assessed his punishment at thirteen years’ imprisonment on each count. Parrish contends in his sole point that the court abused its discretion by denying his challenge for cause as to two members of the venire who stated that they would vote to convict even if the State failed to prove venue.

      Although Parrish challenged these two jurors for cause, he did not exercise peremptory challenges against them after the court denied the challenges for cause.

To preserve error on denied challenges for cause, an appellant must demonstrate on the record that: 1) he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause; 2) he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of venireperson; 3) all his peremptory challenges were exhausted; 4) his request for additional strikes was denied; and 5) an objectionable juror sat on the jury.

Sells v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 73,993, slip op. at 13, 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 63, at *18 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 15, 2003); accord Allen v. State, 108 S.W.3d 281, 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); but see Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 5-6 & n. 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (identifying the 2nd thru 4th factors listed above as indicative of whether the defendant was harmed by the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause and stating in the footnote, “In the past we have confused preservation of error and harm issues within the context of an erroneous denial of a challenge for cause.”).

      Because Parrish did not exercise peremptory challenges against the two jurors of which he complains on appeal, he failed to preserve this issue for our review. Id. Thus, we overrule his sole point.

      We affirm the judgment.

                                                                   TOM GRAY

                                                                   Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

      Justice Vance, and

      Judge Allen (Sitting by Assignment)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed December 31, 2003

Do not publish

[CR25]