Anthony Wayne White v. Elizabeth Ann Miller

Court of Appeals of Texas

Anthony Wayne White v. Elizabeth Ann Miller

DecidedMay 23, 2007

Docket12-07-00182-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Anthony Wayne White v. Elizabeth Ann Miller (Anthony Wayne White v. Elizabeth Ann Miller) 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

Anthony Wayne White v. Elizabeth Ann Miller, (Tex. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION HEADING PER CUR

NO. 12-07-00182-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ANTHONY WAYNE WHITE, § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

ELIZABETH ANN MILLER, ET AL.,

APPELLEES § ANDERSON 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 January 24, 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., February 23, 2007. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on March 2, 2007. However, a motion for new trial must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed. Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a). Because Appellant filed his motion for new trial thirty-seven days after the judgment was signed, the motion was untimely and did not extend the appellate deadlines. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a) (notice of appeal due within ninety days after judgment signed when timely motion for new trial filed). Nor did Appellant file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Consequently, the time for perfecting Appellant’s appeal was not extended. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 10, 2007. Because the notice of appeal was not filed on or before February 23, 2007, this court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.¹

On May 11, 2007, 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 May 21, 2007 to establish the jurisdiction of this court, the appeal would be dismissed. The deadline has now passed, and Appellant has neither responded to our notice or shown the jurisdiction of this court.

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 May 23, 2007.

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

(PUBLISH)

¹ If Appellant had timely filed his motion for new trial, his notice of appeal would have been due April 24, 2007. His notice of appeal still would have been untimely because it was not filed until May 10, 2007.

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

OPINION HEADING PER CUR

NO. 12-07-00182-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ANTHONY WAYNE WHITE, § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

ELIZABETH ANN MILLER, ET AL.,

APPELLEES § ANDERSON 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 January 24, 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., February 23, 2007. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on March 2, 2007. However, a motion for new trial must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed. Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a). Because Appellant filed his motion for new trial thirty-seven days after the judgment was signed, the motion was untimely and did not extend the appellate deadlines. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a) (notice of appeal due within ninety days after judgment signed when timely motion for new trial filed). Nor did Appellant file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Consequently, the time for perfecting Appellant’s appeal was not extended. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 10, 2007. Because the notice of appeal was not filed on or before February 23, 2007, this court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.¹

On May 11, 2007, 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 May 21, 2007 to establish the jurisdiction of this court, the appeal would be dismissed. The deadline has now passed, and Appellant has neither responded to our notice or shown the jurisdiction of this court.

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 May 23, 2007.

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

(PUBLISH)

¹ If Appellant had timely filed his motion for new trial, his notice of appeal would have been due April 24, 2007. His notice of appeal still would have been untimely because it was not filed until May 10, 2007.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anthony Wayne White v. Elizabeth Ann Miller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-wayne-white-v-elizabeth-ann-miller-texapp-2007.