In the Matter of the Marriage of Mauricio Rodriguez and Alma Araseli Perez and in the Interest of J.I.R, a Child v. the State of Texas

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00481-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF MAURICIO RODRIGUEZ AND ALMA ARASELI PEREZ AND IN THE INTEREST OF J.I.R, A CHILD

____________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE 444TH DISTRICT COURT OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On October 3, 2025, appellant

attempted to appeal an order or judgment entered on June 17, 2025, in trial court cause number 2016-DCL-02949-G. On October 7, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The Clerk of the Court also notified appellant that if the defect was not corrected within ten days, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

Upon review of the record, appellant timely filed a motion for new trial on July 16, 2025, which expanded the time for appellant to file a notice of appeal. See id. R. 26.1(a). However, the notice of appeal was not filed with ninety-days of the judgment being appealed. Further, appellant has failed to respond to the clerk’s notice or demonstrate that the appeal was timely perfected.

We are to construe the rules of appellate procedure reasonably and liberally so that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effectuate the purpose of a rule. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. 1997). Furthermore, we are prohibited from enlarging the scope of our jurisdiction by enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case in a manner not provided for by rule. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2; In re T.W., 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, no pet.). Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely; therefore, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

L. ARON PEÑA JR.

Justice

Delivered and filed on the 20th day of November, 2025.