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

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00481-CV
• Status: Published

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.