Daniel David Wilson v. Megan Louise Wilson

NO. 12-10-00145-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
DANIEL DAVID WILSON,
APPELLANT ( APPEAL FROM THE 3RD
V. ( JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
MEGAN LOUISE WILSON, ( HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a). The trial court's judgment was
signed on February 10, 2010. Under rule of appellate procedure 26.1, the
notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is
signed. But Appellant filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P.
26.1(a) (providing that notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days
after judgment signed if any party timely files motion for new trial).
Therefore, his notice of appeal was due to have been filed no later than
May 11, 2010. Appellant's notice of appeal was not filed until May 17,
2010. Because Appellant's notice of appeal was not filed on or before May
17, 2010, it was untimely.
On June 8, 2010, this court notified Appellant pursuant to Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure 37.1 and 42.3 that his notice of appeal was
untimely. Appellant was further informed that the notice of appeal was
filed before the deadline for a motion to extend time for filing the notice
of appeal as provided in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.
Therefore, our notice continued, a motion to extend the time for filing
would be implied in accordance with Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 615
(Tex. 1997). Appellant was notified, however, that the appeal would be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless he notified the court in writing,
on or before June 18, 2010, of facts that reasonably explained his need for
an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See id. The deadline
for responding to this court's notice has expired, and Appellant has not
responded to the June 8, 2010 notice. Consequently, Appellant's implied
motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal is overruled.
See id.
Because this court is not authorized to extend the time for
perfecting an appeal except as provided by Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
Opinion delivered June 23, 2010.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(PUBLISH)