Opinion
NO. 12-12-00167-CV
07-18-2012
APPEAL FROM THE 369TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
This pro se in forma pauperis appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The order Appellant seeks to appeal was signed on May 1, 2012. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court's judgment.
On June 1, 2012, Appellant was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rules 9.5 and 25.1(e). He was further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before July 2, 2012, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant responded that his "notice of service" is included in the notice of appeal and is in compliance with Rules 9.5 and 25.1(e). However, Appellant's "notice of service" does not show service on all parties to the trial court's judgment as required by the cited rules of appellate procedure. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, No. 12-04-00004-CV, 2004 WL 252785, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied); Feist v. Hubert, No. 12-03-00442-CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied). Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(PUBLISH)
NO. 12-12-00167-CV
EX PARTE: JOHN CLOUD
Appeal from the 369th Judicial District Court
of Anderson County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 369-11-4558)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.