Ex Parte Anthony Hudson

Ex Parte Anthony Hudson

  IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-98-092-CV

 

     EX PARTE ANTHONY HUDSON,

                                                                                   Appellant            

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 31,457

                                                                                                               Â

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                               Â

      Appellant Anthony Hudson sought judicial review in district court of the manner in which the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice handled certain grievances filed by him. Hudson appeals from the court's dismissal of his in forma pauperis claim. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(a) (Vernon Supp. 1998). Hudson timely filed a notice of appeal on April 8, 1998, and the clerk’s record was filed in this court on April 16. Although his brief was due on May 18, no appellant’s brief has been filed. Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). Appellate Rule 38.8(a)(1) provides that if an appellant fails to timely file his brief, the Court may:

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief.

Id. 38.8(a)(1).

      Almost two months have passed since Hudson's brief was due. We notified him of this defect by letter on June 24. Id. 42.3, 44.3. He has not responded to our letter showing grounds for continuing the appeal, nor has he provided a reasonable explanation for failing to file a brief. Id. 42.3, 38.8(a)(1). Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. 38.8(a)(1).

                                                                         PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Chief Justice McDonald (retired) 

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed July 15, 1998

Do not publish

alatino","serif"'>   If the claim could not have been presented in a previous habeas application, then Cline has an adequate legal remedy available to him, namely, a habeas application under article 11.07, § 4(a)(1).  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 4(a)(1).

Cline either has or had an adequate legal remedy by habeas.  Therefore, we deny his mandamus petition.

 

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed August 18, 2010

Do not publish

[OT06]

 

---

[1]               We apply Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 and disregard numerous deficiencies in Cline’s mandamus petition.  See Tex. R. App. P. 2.

[2]               According to information found on the website of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Cline has filed thirteen habeas applications.  Three of them were dismissed as improper subsequent writs under article 11.07, section 4.

 

[3]               Section 4(a)(2) permits the filing of a subsequent habeas application if the application contains facts that establish “by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 4(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2009).  This provision does not apply to Cline’s time-credit claim.