Dedrick Fontenot v. Tasha Marie Lewallen

Court of Appeals of Texas

Dedrick Fontenot v. Tasha Marie Lewallen

DecidedApril 5, 2006

Docket12-06-00094-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Dedrick Fontenot v. Tasha Marie Lewallen (Dedrick Fontenot v. Tasha Marie Lewallen) 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

Dedrick Fontenot v. Tasha Marie Lewallen, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MARY'S OPINION HEADING

NO. 12-06-00094-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DEDRICK FONTENOT, § APPEAL FROM THE

APPELLANT

V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

TASHA MARIE LEWALLEN,

APPELLEE § 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 15, 2005. 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 16, 2006. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial. Consequently, the time for perfecting Appellant’s appeal was extended until March 15, 2006. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this Court on March 20, 2006. Because the notice of appeal was not filed on or before March 15, 2006, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

On March 21, 2006, 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 31, 2006 to establish the jurisdiction of this Court, the appeal would be dismissed. On April 4, 2006, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal in this Court. In the amended notice of appeal, Appellant states that the original notice of appeal was filed with the trial court on March 15, 2006 via certified mail in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and file marked on March 17, 2006. We have not received a file marked copy of the notice of appeal filed in the trial court. Moreover, Appellant has furnished no proof of mailing to establish that the original notice of appeal was mailed to the trial court on March 15, 2006. Consequently, Appellant has not 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 April 5, 2006.

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

(PUBLISH)

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

MARY'S OPINION HEADING

NO. 12-06-00094-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DEDRICK FONTENOT, § APPEAL FROM THE

APPELLANT

V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

TASHA MARIE LEWALLEN,

APPELLEE § 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 15, 2005. 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 16, 2006. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial. Consequently, the time for perfecting Appellant’s appeal was extended until March 15, 2006. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this Court on March 20, 2006. Because the notice of appeal was not filed on or before March 15, 2006, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

On March 21, 2006, 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 31, 2006 to establish the jurisdiction of this Court, the appeal would be dismissed. On April 4, 2006, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal in this Court. In the amended notice of appeal, Appellant states that the original notice of appeal was filed with the trial court on March 15, 2006 via certified mail in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and file marked on March 17, 2006. We have not received a file marked copy of the notice of appeal filed in the trial court. Moreover, Appellant has furnished no proof of mailing to establish that the original notice of appeal was mailed to the trial court on March 15, 2006. Consequently, Appellant has not 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 April 5, 2006.

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

(PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dedrick Fontenot v. Tasha Marie Lewallen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dedrick-fontenot-v-tasha-marie-lewallen-texapp-2006.