Opinion
No. 05-05-00581-CV
Opinion issued April 18, 2006.
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 94-00422-E.
Dismissed.
Before Justices MORRIS, O'NEILL, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court has before it appellant Robert Lee Helm's March 28, 2006 second motion for extension of time to file appellant's brief in which he asserts that he has had inadequate time to prepare his brief because of the constraints of conducting legal research and preparing his brief in prison. Appellant's brief was originally due October 20, 2005.
Appellant has repeatedly delayed filing his brief because of issues with the appellate record. By letter dated October 21, 2005, we responded to two letters complaining about the appellate record by resetting his briefing deadline to December 5, 2005 and sending him free copies of the 271-page clerk's record and the 42-page reporter's record. Appellant failed to file a brief, and by order dated December 20, 2005, we ordered him to file his brief, along with a motion for extension of time, within ten days. We waived any filing fee because of his indigent status. We also warned that if he failed to comply with our order, we could dismiss his case without further notice.
In response to our December 20, 2005 order, appellant did not file a brief but a January 5, 2006 "NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR MODIFICATIONS OF FILING TIME FOR APPELLANT'S BRIEF; REQUEST FOR HEARINGS; AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR MODIFICATIONS OF FILING TIME FOR APPELLANT'S BRIEF W/EXHIBIT[S] A B AND PROPOSE ORDER ABATING APPEALS UNTIL APPELLATE-RECORDS IS CORRECTED SUPPLEMENTAL FOR FILING OF APPELLANT'S BRIEF" [sic et passim]. He listed seventy documents in the clerk's record that contain alleged error but failed to identify what portions of the documents were error. He also listed twenty-three general complaints about the reporter's record but again failed to specify the error or provide record cites. Further, appellant failed to explain how the alleged errors were relevant to the resolution of his appeal. On January 24, 2006, we denied his motion to supplement, correct, or otherwise modify the clerk's and reporter's records but granted him a forty-five day extension of time to file his brief. We warned that absent extraordinary circumstances, we would not grant any further extensions of time.
In response to our January 24, 2006 order, appellant filed a February 16, 2006 "NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF MOTION TO ABATE TRAVERSE TO ORDER OF JANUARY 24, 2006," in which he continued to complain about the state of the appellate record, and a February 27, 2006 letter asking about the status of his February 16, 2006 motion. Appellant did not file a brief. On March 15, 2006, we denied his February 16, 2006 motion to abate. We explained that we would not entertain any further motions regarding the state of the appellate record and directed appellant to raise any other complaints regarding the record in his brief. We also directed him to file a brief within ten days of the date of the order and again warned that if he failed to comply with our deadline, we would dismiss his appeal without further notice.
To date, appellant has not filed a brief. We DENY his motion to extend time. We DISMISS the appeal for want of prosecution and for failing to abide by this Court's order. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.3 (b), (c).