Anthony Rohlf v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00603-CV

Anthony ROHLF,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, et al., Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas Trial Court No. 22-03-00038-CVK Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 27, 2024 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On July 26, 2024, appellant filed a notice of appeal from a judgment dated March 25, 2024, dismissing his case for want of prosecution. The clerk’s record was filed on October 1, 2024. It shows on April 12, 2024, appellant filed a timely motion to reinstate pursuant to Rule 165a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. However, a notice of appeal must be filed within ninety (90) days after the judgment is signed if a party timely files a motion to reinstate under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(3). Appellant’s notice of appeal was therefore due no later than June 22, 2024, or a notice of appeal with a motion for extension of time was due no later

04-24-00603-CV

than July 8, 2024. See Thompson v. Unknown Harris Cnty. Sheriff's Deputy/Jailer, No. 14-24- 00238-CV, 2024 WL 2002756, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 7, 2024, no pet.) (dismissing appeal where appellant attempted to appeal order dismissing underlying case for want of prosecution, but where notice of appeal was untimely after appellant filed timely motion to reinstate).

Because it appeared appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, we ordered appellant to show cause no later than November 4, 2024, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005) (holding court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to consider appeal without a timely notice of appeal). We admonished appellant if he failed to timely respond, this appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Appellant has not filed a response.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM