NO. 07-08-0065-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

JULY 2, 2008

______________________________

ELIZABETH C. BRENT, APPELLANT

v.

MARTHA C. FIELD AND J & J CATTLE FAMILY

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLEES

_________________________________

FROM THE 69^TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARTLEY COUNTY;

NO. 4300H; HON. RONALD E. ENNS, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.

ORDER

          Pending before the Court is Appellant’s Second Motion to Review Security for Supersedeas or Alternatively Reconsider June 17 Opinion, filed June 19, 2008. On that date, we issued an order in this appeal, containing the following:

It is ordered that enforcement of the following are stayed pending further order from this Court:

 

1. the district court’s judgment signed on January 25, 2008 in Cause No. 4300H, styled Elizabeth C. Brent v. Martha C. Field and J & J Cattle Family Limited Partnership, et al., from the 69th District Court of Hartley County; and,

 

2. the Order to Hartley County District Clerk to Disburse Funds signed on June 18, 2008.

          According to a sworn motion filed in this Court on June 26, 2008, by appellant Elizabeth C. Brent, on June 19, the Hartley County District Clerk issued checks disbursing funds pursuant to the trial court’s June 18 order, despite this Court’s stay order.

          We are authorized by Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.4(c) to “issue any temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights.” Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(c). In addition, a court has the inherent power to enforce its orders. See Humble Exploration Co. v. Browning, 690 S.W.2d 321, 327 (Tex.App.–Dallas 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1065, 106 S. Ct. 1376, 89 L. Ed. 2d 602 (1986); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 21.001(a), 22.221(a) (Vernon 2004). To enforce our June 19 stay order, appellant Elizabeth C. Brent and appellees Martha C. Field and J & J Cattle Family Limited Partnership, and their agents, are enjoined from transferring, encumbering, hypothecating, and in any way dissipating funds disbursed from the registry of the Hartley County District Clerk pursuant to the trial court’s June 18 order, until further order of this Court.

          Oral argument on Appellant’s Second Motion to Review Security for Supersedeas or Alternatively Reconsider June 17 Opinion is set for 11:00 a.m. on Monday, July 7, 2008, in the courtroom of this Court. Counsel for Brent and Field should be prepared to discuss the status of the funds apparently disbursed on June 19, as well as the status of all other post-trial events and proceedings concerning suspension of the judgment of January 25 and the funds originally held by Amarillo National Bank in escrow.

          It is so ordered.

                                                                           Per Curiam

ception Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>

NO. 07-10-0251-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

AT AMARILLO

 

  PANEL B

 

                                                             OCTOBER 4, 2010

                                            ______________________________

 

                                                       JULIE MARIE ST. CLAIR,

 

Appellant

 

                                                                             v.

 

                                                        THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

Appellee

                                         _________________________________

 

                       FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

 

NO. 58,965-B; HON. JOHN BOARD., PRESIDING

_______________________________

 

Abatement and Remand

_______________________________

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

            Pending before us is a joint motion to abate the appeal and remand the matter back to the trial court so that findings of fact and conclusions of law can be filed.  The record reflects that appellant, timely, filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.  However, none were ever filed.  In State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that, "[u]pon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shall state its essential findings."  In Cullen, the Court explained that, the trial court's refusal to state its findings and conclusions prevented the court of appeals from a meaningful review of the decision to grant or deny the motion to suppress.  Id. at 698.

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the matter back to the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4.  We further direct the Honorable John Board, judge of the 181st Judicial District Court, Potter County, Texas, to execute findings of fact and conclusions of law in this cause as required by State v. Cullen, supra.  We also direct him to execute his findings and conclusions and file them with the clerk of this court, via a supplemental clerk's record, on or before November 3, 2010.  Upon the filing of the supplemental clerk's record containing the findings and conclusions, the appeal will be reinstated.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam