Carolyn J. Wallace v. the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 26, 2004
• Docket: 14-03-01431-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 26, 2004

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 26, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-01431-CV

CAROLYN J. WALLACE, Appellant

V.

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH AT GALVESTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 56th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 03CV0069

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed August 20, 2003.  Appellant filed a motion for new trial on September 22, 2003.  Appellant=s notice of appeal was filed December 4, 2004.

When appellant has filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusion of law, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).

Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time.  See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 9 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26).  However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617-18.  Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed within the fifteen-day period provided by rule 26.3

On January 13, 2004, notification was transmitted to all parties of the Court=s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  Appellant=s response fails to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 26, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Hudson.