Ticole Taylor v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-09-00684-CV
    Ticole Taylor, Appellant
    v.
    Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    NO. 230,270-B, HONORABLE RICK MORRIS, JUDGE PRESIDING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Ticole Taylor appealed the order terminating her parental rights. She asserted in her
    motion for new trial and her statement of points on appeal that the judgment was not supported by
    legally or factually sufficient evidence. The trial court found her indigent, but found that her appeal
    was frivolous, and declined to order preparation of a reporter’s record without cost. See Tex. Civ.
    Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 13.003 (West 2002); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.405 (West 2008).
    Based on a review of documents in the clerk’s record, this Court affirmed the finding that her
    appeal was frivolous, and let the appeal proceed to the merits. Taylor did not pay for preparation of
    a reporter’s record and failed to file a brief. We abated this appeal and remanded for a hearing before
    the trial court to determine whether Taylor desired to pursue this appeal.
    Taylor did not appear at the hearing. Her trial counsel—who filed the motion for
    new trial, the statement of points on appeal, and the appellate docketing statement—appeared and
    confirmed with the trial court that, when the trial court found Taylor’s appeal frivolous, the
    trial court did not appoint him or anyone to represent Taylor on appeal. Counsel stated that
    nevertheless, before the November 2010 hearing on whether Taylor wanted to pursue the appeal, he
    contacted Taylor through information from her parole officer. Counsel stated that he mailed Taylor
    a letter at the address provided which informed her of the hearing date, place, and time, and stated
    plainly, “If you want to appeal your case you must be in court on the above date.” Counsel stated
    that Taylor called him a “couple of different times” at which time he explained to her the importance
    of appearing at the hearing. Counsel told the trial court that, at first, Taylor said she was not going
    to appear but later said she planned to come to the hearing. The trial court then found that Taylor
    had abandoned the appeal.
    From the record before us, we conclude that Taylor has abandoned this appeal. She
    has not filed a brief or otherwise contacted this Court concerning her appeal, which has been pending
    since December 3, 2009. There is no indication that she contacted the trial court regarding pursuing
    her appeal. She did not appear at the trial court hearing set to determine whether she desired to
    pursue the appeal despite being told by her former counsel that she must do so in order to appeal.
    We dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
    Diane Henson, Justice
    Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Henson
    Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
    Filed: December 17, 2010
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-09-00684-CV

Filed Date: 12/17/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/16/2015