# David Martin Haynes v. Attorney General of Texas O/B/O Setha Rene Stevens

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · September 20, 2012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3121481

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** September 20, 2012
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3121481

## Opinion text

Opinion issued September 20, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00669-CV
———————————
DAVID MARTIN HAYNES, Appellant
V.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS o/b/o SETHA RENE STEVENS,
Appellee

On Appeal from the 300th District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 65680

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, David Martin Haynes, has neither paid the required filing fee for

this appeal nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 5 (“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs
must pay—at the time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are required

by statute or Supreme Court order.”), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing

indigence); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207 (Vernon Supp. 2011), §

51.941(a) (Vernon 2005), § 101.041 (Vernon Supp. 2011) (listing fees in court of

appeals); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and

the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,

Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app.

A § B(1) (listing fees in court of appeals). Appellant was notified on July 26, 2012

that this appeal was subject to dismissal if he did not pay the fee by August 6,

2012. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did

not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule);

42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). Appellant was again notified on

August 10, 2012 that this appeal was subject to dismissal if he did not pay the fee

by August 20, 2012. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal,

appellant did not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 42.3(c).

We dismiss the appeal for failure to pay the filing fee. We dismiss any

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3121481. Public record. Not legal advice.