Alfred Lee Stone v. CO IV Charles A. Schull

Court of Appeals of Texas

Alfred Lee Stone v. CO IV Charles A. Schull

DecidedMarch 19, 2008

Docket12-08-00102-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Alfred Lee Stone v. CO IV Charles A. Schull (Alfred Lee Stone v. CO IV Charles A. Schull) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alfred Lee Stone v. CO IV Charles A. Schull, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MARY'S OPINION HEADING

NO. 12-08-00102-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ALFRED LEE STOWE, § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

CO IV CHARLES A. SCHULL, ET AL.,

APPELLEES § HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

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 December 14, 2007. Under rule of appellate procedure 26.1(a), unless Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial or other postjudgment motion that extended the appellate deadlines, his notice of appeal was due to have been filed “within 30 days after the judgment [was] signed,” i.e., January 14, 2008.

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on February 29, 2008, and he did not file a motion for new trial. Therefore, Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. On March 6, 2008, this court notified Appellant pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a) that his notice of appeal was untimely. Appellant was further informed that unless the record was amended on or before March 17, 2008 to establish the jurisdiction of this court, the appeal would be dismissed. In response, Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal. However, Appellant did not file the motion within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, i.e., January 29, 2008. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Therefore, we overrule the motion as untimely filed.

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 March 19, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MARY'S OPINION HEADING

NO. 12-08-00102-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ALFRED LEE STOWE, § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

CO IV CHARLES A. SCHULL, ET AL.,

APPELLEES § HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

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 December 14, 2007. Under rule of appellate procedure 26.1(a), unless Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial or other postjudgment motion that extended the appellate deadlines, his notice of appeal was due to have been filed “within 30 days after the judgment [was] signed,” i.e., January 14, 2008.

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on February 29, 2008, and he did not file a motion for new trial. Therefore, Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. On March 6, 2008, this court notified Appellant pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a) that his notice of appeal was untimely. Appellant was further informed that unless the record was amended on or before March 17, 2008 to establish the jurisdiction of this court, the appeal would be dismissed. In response, Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal. However, Appellant did not file the motion within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, i.e., January 29, 2008. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Therefore, we overrule the motion as untimely filed.

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 March 19, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alfred Lee Stone v. CO IV Charles A. Schull, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfred-lee-stone-v-co-iv-charles-a-schull-texapp-2008.