Narrative Opinion Summary
Darryl Armstrong's appeal has been dismissed due to his failure to establish indigence or pay the required fees as mandated by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5 and other relevant statutes. Despite being notified of the potential dismissal, Armstrong did not provide an adequate response. Consequently, the court, referencing Rule 42.3(c), determined that the appeal should be dismissed for nonpayment. All pending motions related to this case have also been dismissed as moot. The decision was issued by a panel consisting of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale on November 17, 2011.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal for Nonpayment of Fees under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed because Darryl Armstrong failed to establish indigence or pay the required appellate fees.
Reasoning: Darryl Armstrong's appeal has been dismissed due to his failure to establish indigence or pay the required fees as mandated by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5 and other relevant statutes.
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution under Rule 42.3(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the appeal due to Armstrong's noncompliance with the payment requirements after being notified of the potential dismissal.
Reasoning: Despite being notified of the potential dismissal, Armstrong did not provide an adequate response. Consequently, the court, referencing Rule 42.3(c), determined that the appeal should be dismissed for nonpayment.
Mootness of Pending Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: All pending motions in Armstrong's case were dismissed as moot following the dismissal of the appeal.
Reasoning: All pending motions related to this case have also been dismissed as moot.