to review them before entry. The record shows that,- as of the date of his restricted appeal, Bazan had not complied with the trial court’s order to submit an order to memorialize the judgment. II. Error on the Face of the Record A. The Trial Court’s Inherent Power to Dismiss A trial court has the inherent power to dismiss a case. Veterans’ Land Bd. v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex.1976) (per curiam); Burton v. Hoffman, 959 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.). In the context of the record before us, dismissal for want of prosecution for failure to comply with a trial court’s order is not an abuse of discretion. See id. passim; Koslow’s v. Mackie, 796 S.W.2d 700, 704 (Tex.1990); Kutch v. Del Mar College, 831 S.W.2d 506, 509-10 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1992, no writ) (<HOLDING>); see also Public Util. Comm’n v. Cofer, 754
recognizing inherent power of federal district court to sanction conduct abusive of judicial process holding that trial courts have the power to sanction parties for bad faith abuse of the judicial process not covered by rule or statute holding that a bad faith claim is a tort holding that a finding of plaintiffs bad faith is not a prerequisite to the trial courts exercise of discretion to award fees holding that although courts have inherent power to dismiss bad faith litigant  707a does not provide basis for dismissal on grounds of bad faith filing