Candida Ibarra Venegas v. Martin De La Cruz Medina ( 2024 )

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 30, 2024
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-23-00823-CV
CANDIDA IBARRA VENEGAS, Appellant
V.
MARTIN DE LA CRUZ MEDINA, Appellee
On Appeal from the 308th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2022-14134
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court signed a first amended default final decree of divorce on
October 18, 2022. No post-judgment motion was filed. Appellant Candida Ibarra
Venegas filed an October 30, 2023, notice of appeal from what she claims was a
October 17, 2023 denial of her “petition for review,” but there is neither a “petition
for review” nor an October 17, 2023 order from the trial court in the clerk’s
record.1 A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is
1
The clerk’s record does contain a document entitled “Petitioner’s Supplement to
Petition for Bill of Review,” which was filed in the trial court on June 28, 2023 in the same cause
number as the divorce proceeding. This appears to relate to a bill of review, which is an equitable
proceeding, brought by a party seeking to set aside a prior judgment that is no longer subject to
signed when appellant has not filed a timely post-judgment motion. See Tex. R.
App. P. 26.1.
Appellant’s notice of appeal from the October 18, 2022 decree was not filed
timely. A motion to extend time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in
good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within the 15-day grace period provided by Rule
26.3 for filing a motion to extend time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615,
617–18 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of
appeal was not filed within the 15-day period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 26.3.
On January 18, 2024, notification was transmitted to all parties the appeal
was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of subject-matter
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant responded that she is appealing
the October 17, 2023 denial of her “petition for review.” Because the record does
not reflect that a bill of review was filed, appellant’s response does not
demonstrate that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction over what is in the
record, an appeal of the October 18, 2022 decree.
challenge by a motion for a new trial or direct appeal. See Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enters., Inc.,
369 S.W.3d 809, 812 (Tex. 2012). We express no opinion regarding the merits of appellant
separately filing such a proceeding.
2
We dismiss the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.
3