From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Minnfee v. Proyor

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Feb 26, 2013
NO. 01-12-00943-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 26, 2013)

Opinion

NO. 01-12-00943-CV

02-26-2013

BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE, Appellant v. STEPHANIE PROYOR AND FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Appellees


On Appeal from the 400th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 07DCV158888


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Barry Dwayne Minnfee, attempts to appeal from the issuance of our mandate in his prior appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On February 4, 2009, the trial court dismissed the underlying case for want of prosecution. We dismissed appellant's appeal for want of prosecution. See Minnfee v. Stephanie Proyor and Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 01-09-00506-CV, 2011 WL 2899629 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] July 21, 2011, no pet.) (not designated for publication). On October 3, 2011, we denied appellant's motion for rehearing. On May 21, 2012, we issued our mandate. On September 27, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal "from the . . . mandate issued on 5-21-12."

Appellant is not entitled to a second appeal from the trial court's judgment dismissing his case. Further, because our plenary power has expired, we cannot vacate or modify our judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1 (stating, in pertinent part, appellate court's plenary power over its judgment expires 30 days after court overrules all timely filed motions for rehearing), 19.3.

In addition, no independent appeal lies from the issuance of our mandate. "A mandate is the official notice of the action of the appellate court, directed to the court below, advising it of the action of the appellate court and directing it to have its judgment duly recognized, obeyed, and executed." Saudi v. Brieven, 176 S.W.3d 108, 116 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied).

We do not reach the issue of the timeliness of appellant's notice of appeal.

We notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id., 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.


Summaries of

Minnfee v. Proyor

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Feb 26, 2013
NO. 01-12-00943-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 26, 2013)
Case details for

Minnfee v. Proyor

Case Details

Full title:BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE, Appellant v. STEPHANIE PROYOR AND FEDERAL BUREAU OF…

Court:Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Date published: Feb 26, 2013

Citations

NO. 01-12-00943-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 26, 2013)

Citing Cases

Wood v. State

See Tex. Const. art. V, § 5 (court of criminal appeals shall have final appellate jurisdiction in all…

Real Prop. Located at 404 Fuller St. v. State

P. 19.1 (specifying the period of plenary power); id. R. 19.3 (providing appellate court cannot vacate or…