Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sergio San Miguel filed a notice of restricted appeal in trial court cause number 25-M-0027. The appellate clerk instructed him to pay the $205 filing fee and notified him that his notice of appeal did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) and 25.1. He received thirty days to correct the defective notice.
After San Miguel failed to pay the fee, the clerk warned him that the appeal would be dismissed unless he paid within ten days. The court also learned that he had not arranged payment for the clerk’s record and warned him that failing to provide proof of payment could result in dismissal for want of prosecution.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b) and (c). The court acted on its own motion after San Miguel failed to cure the defective notice of appeal, pay the required appellate filing fee, or respond to the clerk’s notices within the specified deadlines.
The memorandum opinion did not address the merits of San Miguel’s restricted appeal or the underlying dispute with Bellco Credit Union. Its disposition rested entirely on San Miguel’s failure to satisfy procedural requirements and prosecute the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must timely correct defects in a notice of appeal after receiving notice from the appellate clerk.
- Failure to pay the required filing fee and arrange payment for the clerk’s record can expose an appeal to dismissal.
- An appellate court may dismiss for want of prosecution when an appellant repeatedly fails to respond to notices requiring action.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that even a restricted appeal will not proceed unless the appellant complies with filing, fee, and record-payment requirements. Repeated inaction after clerk warnings can end an appeal before the court considers any substantive issue.