Opinion
NO. 02-11-00294-CV
05-03-2012
ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,631.00) IN U.S. CURRENCY; ONE (1) AUDIOVOX CELL PHONE, MODEL CDM-8610VM, SERIAL NUMBER 43110888; ONE (1) SAMSUNG CELL PHONE, MODEL SGH-E715, SERIAL NUMBER R5VX468004V; ONE (1) MAN YELLOW METAL WATCH WITH NUMEROUS CLEAR STONES; TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($26,456.00) IN U.S. CURRENCY; 1998 WHITE LEXUS GS400 BEARING TEXAS LICENSE PLATE Z60-DFV, VIN JT8BH68X5W0013145; FOUR (4) ZEON AUTOMOBILE TIRES WITH CHROME WHEELS; ONE (1) PANASONIC PLASMA TV, MODEL TH-42PD25, SERIAL NUMBER YJ4531455 WITH REMOTE; ONE (1) SAMSUNG DVD PLAYER, MODEL DYD-P241A/XAA, SERIAL NUMBER 69WX600260P WITH REMOTE; ONE (1) TOSHIBA VCR, MODEL M-645, SERIAL NUMBER 41566345; ONE (1) HARMON KARDON DVD PLAYER, MODEL DVD22, SERIAL NUMBER WA0007-17176 WITH REMOTE; ONE (1) HARMON KARDON AMP MODEL AVR-130, SERIAL NUMBER AN006-22989 WITH REMOTE; ONE (1) SONY HANDY CAM, MODEL DCR-TRV19, SERIAL NUMBER 344852; ONE (1) SHARP COLOR TV, MODEL 25J-M100, SERIAL NUMBER 917710; TEN THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10,000.00) IN U.S. CURRENCY; ONE (1) ONKY SIX-DISC PLAYER, MODEL DV-CP702, SERIAL NUMBER 5461731553; ONE (1) ONKY RECEIVER, MODEL HT-R520, SERIAL NUMBER B451020338; ONE (1) ONKY SUBWOOFER, MODEL SKM520, SERIAL NUMBER 5472773350; FIVE (5) ONKY SPEAKERS (TWO (2) WITH MODEL NUMBER SKM-520, SERIAL NUMBER 5472770; TWO (2) WITH MODEL NUMBER SKF-520F, SERIAL NUMBER 5472773350; AND ONE (1) WITH MODEL NUMBER SKC-520C, SERIAL NUMBER 5472773350); AND ONE (1) ESA FLAT PLASMA TV, MODEL PDP4294IV, SERIAL NUMBER 390B3CFXA00112J1APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
On January 11, 2012, we notified Appellant Raul Ramirez that his brief did not comply with rules 6.3, 9.4(h), and 38.1(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, nor did it comply with subsections A and E of this court's local appellate rule 1. We allowed Appellant until January 23, 2012 to file an amended brief that complied with the above rules. We stated in our letter to Appellant that his failure to timely file an amended brief in compliance with the above rules could result in the waiver of noncomplying points, our striking his brief, or the dismissal of his appeal. We received Appellant's amended brief on January 26, 2012, but it too was noncompliant.
See Tex. R. App. P. 6.3, 9.4(h), 38.1(a)-(d), (f)-(i), (k).
See 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1(A), (E).
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c).
Accordingly, on January 30, 2012, we notified Appellant that his amended brief did not comply with rules 6.3, 9.4(h), and 38.1(d), (g), (i), and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, nor did it comply with subsection E of this court's local appellate rule 1. We allowed Appellant until March 1, 2012 to file a second amended brief that complied with the above rules. We stated in our letter to Appellant that his failure to timely file a second amended brief in compliance with the above rules could result in the waiver of noncomplying points, our striking his brief, or the dismissal of his appeal. On March 5, 2012, this court received Appellant's second amended brief. It remains noncompliant.
See Tex. R. App. P. 6.3, 9.4(h), 38.1(d), (g), (i), (k).
See 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1(E).
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c).
See Tex. R. App. P. 6.3, 9.4(h), 38.1(d), (g), (i), (k).
Accordingly, we strike Appellant's brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c).
--------
PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.