Janice Darlene Seaton v. Alan Ray Bratton

Seaton v. Bratton

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-92-136-CV

     JANICE DARLENE SEATON,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     ALAN RAY BRATTON,

                                                                                              Appellee

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court # 33,038-85

MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to retain this case on the trial court's docket, signed on December 19, 1991. A motion to reinstate the case was timely filed, as well as an appeal bond. The time for filing the record expired on April 17, 1992, 120 days from the signing of the appealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 54(a). However, the record, consisting of the transcript and statement of facts, was not received until May 20, 1992, at which time they were filed and counsel were notified that the record was not received within 120 days of the order denying the motion to retain.

      On May 28, Appellant filed a motion to extend time for filing the record. Appellee then filed a motion to dismiss for failure to timely file the record and, in response to this motion, Appellant states that a notice of appeal form from the district clerk incorrectly stated that the appeal was due on May 22, 1992.

      Neither City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 35 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 606 (February 26, 1992), nor Crown Life Ins. v. Estate of Gonzalez, 820 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. 1991), are applicable here. Because Appellant failed to file a motion for extension of time to file the record within fifteen days following the date the record was due, Appellant's motion to extend time for filing the record or to supplement the record on appeal is denied. See id. at 54(c). Appellee's motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. Id. at 60(a).

                                                                                     PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

      Justice Cummings, and

      Justice Vance

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed July 22, 1992

Do not publish

ng lot. In accordance with Appellant's desires, police did not tow the vehicle.

          Appellant contends that the inventory was improper and that the trial court should have suppressed the handgun. Inventory searches are legal and reasonable and need not be predicated upon the same requirements for probable cause or in obtaining a search warrant. Backer v. State, (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) 656 S.W.2d 463, 464. Inventory searches conducted pursuant to standard police procedures are reasonable. The purpose of an inventory search is to protect the owner's property while it remains in police custody, to protect the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, and to protect the police from potential damages. Kelley v. State, (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) 677 S.W.2d 34, 37.

          At the time the police conducted the inventory of Appellant's vehicle, they were certainly authorized to do so. It was only after the inventory had been completed that Appellant informed the police that he wanted the car to remain on the garage parking lot. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the officers followed established departmental policy; that the inventory search was proper, and that the evidence found in that search was admissible. Murdock v. State, (Tex. App.—Texarkana) 840 S.W.2d 558, 569.

          Appellant's point is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                                                 FRANK G. McDONALD

                                                                                 Chief Justice (Retired)

Before Justice Cummings,

          Justice Vance, and

          Chief Justice (Retired) McDonald

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed January 27, 1993

Do not publish