Hector Sanchez, 02093641 v. Gabriel Gonzales

NUMBER 13-25-00222-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

HECTOR SANCHEZ, #02093641, Appellant,

v.

GABRIEL GONZALES, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT
OF BEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

On April 22, 2025, pro se appellant Hector Sanchez filed a notice of appeal

attempting to appeal the judgment rendered in trial court cause number B-22-1419-CV-

A. On April 25, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified Sanchez that he should make a written

request for the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(a), 34.6(b)(1). Sanchez then
filed a “Request for Clarification” which we construed as a motion to supplement the

appellate record.

On July 25, 2025, we abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court

for clarification of Sanchez’s motion to supplement the appellate record. Furthermore, we

instructed the trial court to make a determination on whether Sanchez was still actively

pursuing his appeal. On August 26, 2025, the trial court held a hearing pursuant to this

Court’s abatement order and issued written findings. Among other things, the trial court

found that “the record is devoid of actual evidence of [appellee’s] employment status with

[the Texas Department of Criminal Justice]” and “appellant desires to proceed with his

appeal.”

On September 9, 2025, Sanchez filed a motion in this Court requesting a free copy

of the appellate record. Upon further review of the documents before us, it appears that

Sanchez filed a statement of inability to afford payment of court costs, however, the trial

court did not make a determination on the matter of his indigency. Accordingly, on

September 15, 2025, we issued a supplemental abatement order and requested that the

trial court decide whether Sanchez was indigent, whether he was entitled to a free

appellate record, and whether he had been provided a complete copy of the appellate

record. On November 7, 2025, the trial court held a hearing pursuant to this Court’s

supplemental abatement order and issued written findings. In particular, the trial court

found that Sanchez “is not ‘indigent,’” “is not entitled to a free record,” and “has not been

provided with a complete [record].” The trial court noted that the clerk’s office is “amenable

to accepting monthly installments for the payments of [c]ourt [c]osts as reflected in the

transcript of the proceedings.”

2
On November 10, 2025, we reinstated the appeal. On the same day, the Clerk of

the Court requested Sanchez to remit a $10.00 filing fee for his motion to supplement the

record filed on July 21, 2025, and a $10.00 filing fee for his motion for a free copy of the

appellate record filed on September 9, 2025. We further notified Sanchez to remit the

$205.00 filing fee for the notice of appeal within ten days from the date of the notice. On

December 11, 2025, the Clerk of the Court again notified Sanchez he was delinquent in

remitting a $20.00 filing fee for both motions. The Clerk of the Court further notified

Sanchez that the $205.00 filing fee was delinquent and the appeal was subject to

dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of the notice. See id.

R. 42.3 (b), (c).

On January 6, 2026, Sanchez filed an objection complaining, among other things,

that there is no order that complies with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. See TEX. R.

CIV. P. 145(f). On January 8, 2026, we abated the matter and remanded the case to the

trial court to provide Sanchez with an order pursuant to Rule 145. See id. On January 12,

2026, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed that included the trial court’s “Order on

Finding Appellant Not Indigent Pursuant to Rule 145(f).” The following day, we reinstated

the appeal and the Clerk of the Court mailed a copy of the trial court’s order to Sanchez.

On January 27, 2026, the Clerk of the Court notified Sanchez that he was still delinquent

in remitting the filing fees and further advised him that the appeal was subject to dismissal

if the fees were not paid by February 2, 2026. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

Sanchez failed to pay any of the filing fees as instructed nor otherwise responded

to the clerk’s notices requiring a response or other action within the time specified.

Furthermore, the record contains no evidence that he is excused by statute or rule from

3
paying the filing fees. See id. R. 5, 20. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3 permits

an appellate court to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to comply with

a requirement of the appellate rules. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c). The Court, having examined

and fully considered the documents on file and Sanchez’s failure to pay the filing fee

required to pursue this appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 5, 42.3(b), (c);

Capitol Imaging Servs. v. Charles, No. 13-25-00246-CV, 2025 WL 2166598, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 31, 2025) (mem. op.). 1

CLARISSA SILVA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
26th day of February, 2026.

1 Sanchez’s motion to supplement the record is dismissed as moot.

4