Bush v. State, 80 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. App. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Bush v. State, 80 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. App. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Karen Roberts v. State (texapp, 2009-04-10)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Karen Roberts v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Stavinoha v. State , 82 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. App.--Waco 2002, no pet.); Bush v. State , 80 S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex. App.--Waco 2002, no pet.); see also McDaniel v. State , 75 S.W.3d 605, 605-06 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, no pet.); Rodriguez v. State , 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Karen Roberts v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Stavinoha v. State, 82 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.); Bush v. State, 80 S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.); see also McDaniel v. State, 75 S.W.3d 605 , 605–06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.); Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Socorro Rodriguez v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
See Stavinoha v. State , 82 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. App.--Waco 2002, no pet.); Bush v. State , 80 S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex. App.--Waco 2002, no pet.); see also McDaniel v. State , 75 S.W.3d 605, 605-06 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, no pet.); Rodriguez v. State , 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robinett, Cedrick Anderson v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Stavinoha v. State , 82 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.); Bush v. State , 80 S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.); see also McDaniel v. State , 75 S.W.3d 605 , 605–06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.); Rodriguez v. State , 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Edward Michael Ratliff v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
App. 1985); Bush v. State , 80 S.W.3d 199, 199 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.). 4.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edward Michael Ratliff v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
App. 1985); Bush v. State , 80 S.W.3d 199, 199 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.). 4: It appears from the record that Walsh is an attorney who assisted, without representing, Appellant at the trial in the justice court. 5: See Tex. R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Emmit Brager v. State
Tex. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Stavinoha v. State , 82 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. App.-Waco 2002, no pet. h.); Bush v. State , 80 S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex. App.-Waco 2002, no pet. h.); see also McDaniel v. State , 75 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.); Rodriguez v. State , 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd).
examined Cited "see" in the Interest of B.N., a Child (4×)
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bush v. State, 80 S.W.3d 199 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, no pet.) (where appellant who was not entitled to counsel failed to file a brief and failed to further pursue the appeal, court of appeals dismissed appeal for want of prosecution); Stavinoha v. State, 82 S.W.3d 690 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, no pet.) (where appeal was abated to determine if appellant had abandoned appeal, counsel appeared at hearing, appellant did not appear and could not be located, and trial court found appellant had abandoned appeal, court of appeals dismissed appeal for want of prosecution); Peralta v. State, 82 S.W.3d 724 (…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brager, Emmit
Tex. Crim. App. · 2004 · signal: compare · confidence medium
See Dimon v. Mansy , 479 S.E.2d 339, 347-49 (W.Va. 1996) (believing that the time has arrived to disassociate the civil practice of West Virginia with the position taken in Link ) and authorities cited therein; compare Bush v. State , 80 S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, no pet.) (appellate court dismissed appeal for "want of prosecution" when appellant failed to file brief after being ordered to do so and being warned that failure to file a brief could result in dismissal of appeal).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Benjamin Robert BUSH, Jr., Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
10-01-160-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Jun 12, 2002.
80 S.W.3d 199
2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 4347
2002 WL 1334787
Benjamin Robert Bush, Jr., Waco, pro se., John W. Segrest, McLennan County Dist. Atty., Waco, for appellee.
Davis, Vance, Gray.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

TOM GRAY, Justice.

A justice court convicted Benjamin Robert Bush, Jr. of driving his pickup with an expired license plate. Bush appealed to the County Court at Law No. 2 of McLen-nan County. A jury in the County Court convicted Bush of the offense and assessed a $199.50 fine. Acting as his own attorney, Bush timely filed a notice of appeal.

This appeal involves only a monetary punishment for a class C misdemeanor; accordingly, Bush is not entitled to appointed counsel. See Tex.Code CRIM. Proc. Ann. ARTS. 1.051(c), 26.04(a) (Vernon Supp. 2002); Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 373-74, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 1162, 59 L.Ed.2d 383, 389 (1979); Disheroon v. State, 687 S.W.2d 332, 333-34 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Fortner v. State, 764 S.W.2d 934, 934-35 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1989, no pet.).

The clerk’s record was filed on July 5, 2001. The trial court denied Bush’s request for a free reporter’s record, finding that Bush' “did not meet the burden of proving indigence.” Because Bush failed to pay for the reporter’s record or make arrangements for such payment, we notified him on November 26, 2001, that his[*200] appeal would be submitted on the clerk’s record alone and that his brief was due in thirty days. We notified Bush by letter dated January 10, 2002, that his brief was overdue. No brief was filed.

On February 27, 2002, we ordered Bush to file a brief within 20 days of the date of the order. We also warned Bush that if no brief was filed, we may dismiss the appeal “under our inherent authority to avoid the waste of judicial resources if a party fails to comply with a court order or the rules of procedure.” Bush v. State, No. 10-01-160-CR, slip op. at 2 (Tex.App.Waco Feb. 27, 2002, order) (not designated for publication) (citing Johnson Snodgrass v. KTAO, Inc., 75 S.W.3d 84, 87-88 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth, 2002, no pet. h.), and Wilson v. State, 39 S.W.3d 390, 391 (Tex. App.-Waco 2001, no pet.) (per curiam)). To date, no brief or extension to file a brief has been filed.

It has now been five months-since the original due date of Bush’s brief.

Bush has completely failed in his duty to prosecute this appeal, to contact this Court to explain his failure to file a brief, or to take any further action toward prosecuting this appeal. Under these circumstances, we conclude this appeal was not taken with the intention of pursuing it to completion, but instead was taken for the purposes of delay. Because Bush has failed to comply with an order of this Court, we dismiss this appeal, under our inherent authority, for want of prosecution. See McDaniel v. State, 75 S.W.3d 605 (TexApp.-Texarkana 2002, no pet. h.); Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (TexApp.-Amarillo 1998, pet. ref d).