Opinion
No. 10-04-00026-CV
Opinion delivered and filed September 8, 2004.
Appeal from the 378th District Court, Ellis County, Texas, Trial Court # 66494D.
Affirmed.
Juan A. Reyna, Kenedy, TX, pro se.
Shani R. Flemins, Law Office of Shani R. Flemins, Dallas, TX, for appellee/respondent.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA (Justice Vance concurs in the judgment with a note: Z.L.T. involved a bench warrant. It would appear that the "impact on the correctional system" would be far less when a prisoner is allowed to appear by telephone, as Appellant requested, than when a bench warrant is issued.)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal concerns a petition to adjudicate the paternity of A.D. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 160.201(b)(3) (Vernon 2002). The trial court dismissed Appellant's petition. We will affirm.
In one issue, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in not ordering that Appellant, who is imprisoned in the Texas Department of Corrections, appear by telephone at the hearing on a motion to dismiss the petition. Appellant contends that he made three requests that the court order a telephone hearing. We assume, without deciding, that Appellant's letters to the court constituted motions to appear by telephone. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); e.g., In re J.D.S., 111 S.W.3d 324, 327 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.). Nonetheless, Appellant's letters do not state "any factual information showing why his interest in appearing outweighed the impact on the correctional system." See In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163, 166 (Tex. 2003). We overrule Appellant's issue.
Having overruled Appellant's sole issue, we affirm the judgment.