Narrative Opinion Summary
Randy Dale Mayo's appeal against appellees Odell Denton, Aaron Lankford, Curt F. Steib, Randol L. Stout, Charlotte Harris, and John E. Sutton was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues. Although Mayo filed a Notice of Appeal and an Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs of Appeal, he failed to provide timely notice to the opposing parties and the court reporter as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(3)(B). The Clerk of the Court informed Mayo of this deficiency and offered him the chance to submit a supplemental transcript confirming timely notice or to file a cost bond or cash deposit. Despite these options, Mayo did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirement or file a cost bond. Consequently, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal and dismissed it, along with Mayo's related motion titled "Objection to the Transcript." The decision was filed on January 23, 1997, and marked as not for publication.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Compliancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirement or file a cost bond.
Reasoning: Despite these options, Mayo did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirement or file a cost bond.
Jurisdictional Requirement for Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with jurisdictional requirements, specifically the timely notice to opposing parties and the court reporter.
Reasoning: Randy Dale Mayo's appeal...was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues.
Notice Requirements under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(3)(B)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant failed to provide timely notice as required under the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(3)(B), which led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Reasoning: Mayo failed to provide timely notice to the opposing parties and the court reporter as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(3)(B).
Opportunity to Remedy Deficiencies in Appeal Filingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant was given an opportunity to correct the deficiency in the notice requirement or to file a cost bond or cash deposit, but did not comply.
Reasoning: The Clerk of the Court informed Mayo of this deficiency and offered him the chance to submit a supplemental transcript confirming timely notice or to file a cost bond or cash deposit.