Carolyn M. Miller v. Durango Midrise, LLC Dba Hemisview Village ( 2014 )

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00738-CV Carolyn M. MILLER, Appellant v. DURANGO MIDRISE, LLC d/b/a DURANGO MIDRISE, LLC d/b/a Hemisview Village, Appellee From the County Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 387577 Honorable Jason Pulliam, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 15, 2014 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION The clerk’s record in this forcible entry and detainer suit was filed on November 18, 2013. It shows that the trial court’s judgment was signed on August 23, 2013. And, because no motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion for reinstatement, or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law was included in the clerk’s record, we noted in our order of November 25, 2013, that it appeared the notice of appeal was due to be filed on September 23, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). We also noted that the clerk’s record did not contain a notice of appeal filed in the trial court and that appellant filed a notice of appeal with this court on October 23, 2013. 04-13-00738-CV Therefore, we explained it appeared that appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed and that we did not have jurisdiction over this appeal. We ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Since our order, three supplemental clerk’s records have been filed. The first supplemental clerk’s record shows that appellant filed her notice of appeal in the trial court on November 27, 2013. The second supplemental clerk’s record shows that appellant filed the following documents in the trial court on December 12, 2013: motion to reinstate; request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; motion for new trial; and motion to modify correct, or reform the judgment. Because these documents were not filed until December 12, 2013, they were untimely filed and do not extend appellate timetables. The third supplemental clerk’s record contains a letter dated October 23, 2013, from appellant claiming that she attempted to file a notice of appeal with this court online. Because appellate deadlines were not extended by appellant’s filing of her post-judgment motions, her notice of appeal was due to be filed on September 23, 2013. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on October 8, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. The supplemental clerk’s record shows that she did not file her notice of appeal until November 27, 2013. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM -2-