In the Estate of Janice Kay Vega v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 13th District
Date FiledAugust 31, 2026
Docket13-26-00328-CV
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NUMBER 13-26-00328-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN THE ESTATE OF JANICE KAY VEGA, DECEASED
____________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3
OF HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Peña, West, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West
This matter is before the court on its own motion. 1 On May 28, 2026, we ordered
this appeal abated and remanded the case to the trial court to make determinations
related to whether the appellant was indigent and entitled to a reporter’s record at no cost
and whether any omissions existed in the clerk’s record.
1
This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant to a
docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See Tex Gov’t Code
§§ 22.220(a), 73.001.
Upon review of the trial court’s findings, there were no omissions in the clerk’s
record and appellant was found indigent and entitled to a free reporter’s record. However,
upon review of the reporter’s record, appellant indicated that “I can just drop the appeal,”
that the case was going to “resolve the way I wanted,” and that he will “just drop the
appeal.” Accordingly, on August 17, 2026, the Clerk of the Court requested that appellant
submit either a formal motion to dismiss or a notice indicating that he wishes to proceed
with the appeal. Furthermore, appellant was notified that if he failed to respond to the
notice, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b),
(c).
Appellant has failed to respond to the notice from the Clerk of the Court requiring
a response or other action within a specified time, so we are of the opinion that the appeal
should be dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed
for want of prosecution, and any and all pending motions are each dismissed as moot.
See id.
JON WEST
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
31st day of August, 2026.
2