












 
 
 
 
 
 
                             NUMBER
13-00-012-CV
 
                         COURT OF APPEALS
 
               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________________
 
MALCOLM
TROY EARVIN,                                         Appellant,
 
                                           v.
 
THE
STATE OF TEXAS,                                              Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________
 
                  On appeal from the 157th
District Court
                            of Harris
County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________
 
                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
     Before Chief Justice Valdez and
Justices Castillo and Garza
                       Memorandum Opinion Per
Curiam
 




Appellant, MALCOLM
TROY EARVIN, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 157th
District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 9413942.  The clerk=s record was filed on April 7, 2000.  No reporter=s record was filed.  Appellant=s brief was due on or about May 8, 2003.  To
date, no appellate brief has been received.
When the appellant has
failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal
for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure
and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant=s failure to timely
file a brief.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).
On June
17, 2005, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to
dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).  Appellant was given ten days to explain why
the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief.  To date, no response has been received.
The Court, having
examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to file a
proper appellate brief, this Court=s notice, and
appellant=s failure to respond,
is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.  The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
PROSECUTION.
PER CURIAM
 
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 28th day of July,
2005
 
 
 

