Abelino Garza Jr. v. Jose G. Lopez ( 2014 )

NUMBER 13-14-00624-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________
ABELINO GARZA JR., Appellant,
v.
JOSE G. LOPEZ, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 139th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Abelino Garza Jr., attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment
entered by the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-0029-
13-C. Judgment in this cause was signed on July 14, 2014. A motion for new trial was
filed on August 13, 2014. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1,
appellant’s notice of appeal was due on October 13, 2014, but was not filed until October
24, 2014.
A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in
good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the
fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time.
See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18, 619 (1997) (construing the
predecessor to Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for
the late filing; it is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins,
140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565,
567 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.).
On October 27, 2014, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that
steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised
that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court’s
letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from
appellant providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellant’s failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant’s failure to respond to this
Court’s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
4th day of December, 2014.
2