Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
KENNETH RAY ROBINSON, Appellant v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Kenneth Ray Robinson, has neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.941(a) (West 2013), 101.041 (West Supp. 2016); Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant filed a response asserting that he “filed his Motion of Inability to Pay Cost in the trial court.” This Court subsequently ordered the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk's record on indigence.
The clerk's record on indigence filed on February 3, 2017 demonstrates that appellant filed a “Declaration of Inability to Pay Cost” for the trial proceeding, but did not file a post-trial affidavit of indigence for this appeal. Appellant fails to establish indigence for purpose of appellate costs because “the prior filing of an affidavit of indigence in the trial court pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 does not meet the requirements [for indigence on appeal], which requires a separate affidavit and proof of current indigence, except in cases in which a presumption of indigence has been established as provided by Rule 20.1(a)(3).” TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c)(1). Rule 20.1(a)(3)'s presumption of indigence is inapplicable to this case because the underlying suit was neither “filed by a governmental entity in which termination of the parent-child relationship or managing conservatorship is requested” nor has appellant demonstrated that he “was determined by the trial court to be indigent” in such a case. TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a)(3). Rather than involving a termination action by a governmental entity, the appeal challenges the dismissal of a Title IV-D action regarding child support.
Accordingly, because appellant has failed to establish indigence, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: NO. 01-16-00892-CV
Decided: February 14, 2017
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)