Keith Dale Jenkins, II v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                     In The
    Court of Appeals
    Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
    No. 06-14-00202-CR
    KEITH DALE JENKINS, II, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 123rd District Court
    Panola County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2012-C-0167
    Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
    Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Keith Dale Jenkins, II, timely filed a notice of appeal November 14, 2014. The appellate
    record was due to be filed with this Court December 2, 2014. To date, neither the clerk’s nor the
    reporter’s records have been filed.
    By letter dated February 19, 2015, we advised Jenkins that, although this Court was in
    receipt of his notice of appeal, he had not filed a docketing statement, a clerk’s record, or a
    reporter’s record in this case. There is no indication that Jenkins filed an affidavit of indigence in
    the trial court, and we are aware of no finding of indigence. Therefore, Jenkins is responsible for
    paying the costs of preparing the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a), (b). We further
    advised Jenkins in our February 19 correspondence that, absent receipt, on or before March 6,
    2015, of information showing a substantial and tangible effort to prosecute his case, the appeal
    could be dismissed for want of prosecution.
    By letter dated March 18, 2015, we advised Jenkins a second time that his docketing
    statement and the appellate record were late. Further, we established a new deadline—March 30,
    2015—for Jenkins to file his docketing statement and to provide proof that he had made
    arrangements for payment of the costs of preparing the appellate record. Jenkins was again warned
    that his failure to provide this Court with a record could result in the dismissal of this appeal.
    Because Jenkins has failed to provide this Court with either the clerk’s or the court
    reporter’s records, this Court has no meaningful way of resolving Jenkins’ appeal. Accordingly,
    we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); Rodriguez v. State,
    2
    
    970 S.W.2d 133
    (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d); see also Sutherland v. State, 
    132 S.W.3d 510
    , 511–12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
    Josh R. Morriss, III
    Chief Justice
    Date Submitted:      June 2, 2015
    Date Decided:        June 3, 2015
    Do Not Publish
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-14-00202-CR

Filed Date: 6/3/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015