Channin K. Ardoin v. State ( 2013 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12-00386-CR
CHANNIN K. ARDOIN,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
______________
Trial Court No. 12-14967
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 22, 2012, we received a pro se “written notice of appeal” from
Channin K. Ardoin. Although it identified a trial court cause number, No. 12-14967, the
notice of appeal was insufficient for us to even determine the county or court from
which Ardoin sought to appeal.
By letter dated October 31, 2012, the Clerk of the Court notified Ardoin as
follows:
Pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, you are
notified that the “Written Notice of Appeal” you sent to this Court is
defective in that it fails to identify the trial court judgment or other
appealable order from which you desire to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2(c), (f); 37.1. You are requested to ensure that a proper amended
notice of appeal is filed with the trial court, with notice given to this
Court, within 30 days from the date of this notice. If a proper amended
notice of appeal is not filed in the trial court within 30 days from the date
of this notice, this appeal must be referred to the Court for appropriate
orders. TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1.
More than thirty days passed, and Ardoin did not give notice to this Court that he filed
a proper amended notice of appeal with the trial court. Accordingly, by letter dated
January 9, 2013, the Clerk of the Court reminded Ardoin of the October 31 letter and
notified him that the Court, under its inherent authority, may dismiss his appeal for
want of prosecution if the Court concludes that the appeal was not taken with the
intention of pursuing it to completion, but instead was taken for the purposes of delay.
See Ealy v. State, 222 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.); Peralta v. State, 82
S.W.3d 724 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.). The Clerk also warned Ardoin in the
January 9 letter that the Court may dismiss his appeal unless, within twenty-one days
after the date of the letter, he provided notice that he had filed an amended notice of
appeal with the trial court.
To date, Ardoin has not provided notice to this Court that he has filed an
amended notice of appeal with the trial court. In fact, in the more than three months
since we received Ardoin’s notice of appeal, he has completely failed to contact this
Court or to take any further action toward prosecuting this appeal, despite our letters.
Under these circumstances, we conclude that this appeal was not taken with the
intention of pursuing it to completion, but instead was taken for the purposes of delay.
Ardoin v. State Page 2
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, under our inherent authority, for want of
prosecution.
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed February 14, 2013
Do not publish
[CR25]
Ardoin v. State Page 3