Milestone Architectural Ornamentation, Inc. v. Cecilia Camille Ochs ( 2010 )

NO. 07-10-0047-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
APRIL 13, 2010
______________________________
MILESTONE ARCHITECTURAL ORNAMENTATION, INC., APPELLANT
V.
CECILIA CAMILLE OCHS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 97,201-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Proceeding pro se through its Chief Executive Officer, Appellant, Milestone
Architectural Ornamentation, Inc., filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's judgment
in favor of Appellee, Cecilia Camille Ochs. For the reasons expressed herein, we
dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. See
Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). A notice of appeal must be filed
within thirty days after judgment is signed. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. The deadline is
extended to ninety days under certain circumstances. Id. at 26.1(a). A further fifteen-
day extension is provided by Rule 26.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The limited documents filed in this appeal reflect that the judgment being
appealed was signed on October 21, 2009. A motion for new trial was filed on October
28, 2009, extending the deadline in which to file a notice of appeal to January 19, 2010.
Adding the fifteen day extension,1 the last possible date in which to file the notice was
February 3, 2010. The notice of appeal, however, was not filed until February 4, 2010,
beyond all possible deadlines in which to do so.2
Pursuant to Rule 42.3(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate procedure, Appellant's
CEO was notified by letter dated February 17, 2010, to show cause why this appeal
should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, noting that failure to respond would
result in dismissal. No response was filed. This Court has no discretion in the matter
other than to dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 2.
Consequently, this purported appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
1
A motion for extension of time for the fifteen day deadline is necessarily implied. See Verburgt
v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). "[O]nce the period for granting a motion for extension of
time . . . has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction." Id.
2
The notice of appeal was hand delivered making Rule 9.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure inapplicable.