$15,692 US CURRENCY 1996 ISUZU (TROY COX), Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

No. 05-04-01728-CVCourt of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas.
Opinion Issued September 7, 2005.

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 03-12963-H.

Before Justice O’NEILL, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.

A review of this appeal shows Troy Cox filed his notice of appeal and affidavit of indigence November 29, 2004. A contest was timely filed and, following a hearing, the trial judge sustained the contest. Mr. Cox contested the trial court’s order sustaining the contest. After the trial court’s record on the contest to Mr. Cox’s affidavit of indigence was filed, this Court concluded, in an order dated February 9, 2005, that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in determining Mr. Cox was not entitled to proceed as an indigent. Mr. Cox was then ordered to pay the $125 filing fee and to provide the Court with written verification he had paid or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and, if necessary to the disposition of this appeal, the reporter’s record. The Court cautioned Mr. Cox that the failure to pay the fee or provide the written verification on or before February 19, 2005 would result in the appeal being dismissed without further notice.

On March 3, 2005, Mr. Cox paid the $125 filing fee. He did not, however, provide the Court with written verification as requested in the February 9, 2005 order. In a second letter, dated July 21, 2005, we informed Mr. Cox that the only clerk’s record on file pertained to the issue of the contest of his affidavit of indigence and that this case could not proceed without, at a minimum, a clerk’s record in the forfeiture case. We again directed Mr. Cox to file, within ten days of the letter date, written verification that he had paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for the clerk’s record in the forfeiture case. We also cautioned Mr. Cox that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution without further notice. See Tex.R.App.P. 37.3(b), 42.3. To date, Mr. Cox has not provided written verification that he has paid or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record in the forfeiture case.

Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal for want of prosecution See Tex.R.App.P. 37.3(b), 42.3.