in the Matter of the Estate of Manuel Benavides ( 2015 )

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