James T. Bonnet v. Troy Shane Quinn

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 28, 2023
• Docket: 04-22-00813-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-22-00813-CV

James T. BONNET, Appellant

v.

Troy Shane QUINN, Appellee

From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas Trial Court No. 34876 Honorable Robert E. Cadena, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 28, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction arguing appellant

did not timely file a notice of appeal. A timely filed notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this

court’s jurisdiction. See Sweed v. Nye, 323 S.W.3d 873, 875 (Tex. 2010); N. Cent. Baptist Hosp.

v. Chavez, No. 04-20-00590-CV, 2021 WL 983351, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 17,

2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). In this case, the trial court signed a final judgment on October 4, 2022.

Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial, motion to modify judgment, motion for

reinstatement, or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the notice of appeal was due 04-22-00813-CV

to be filed on November 3, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. A motion for extension of time to file

the notice of appeal was due on November 18, 2022. See id. 26.3. Appellant did not file his notice

of appeal until December 5, 2022, and he did not file a motion for extension of time pursuant to

Rule 26.3. See id.

On May 15, 2023, we informed appellant his notice of appeal was not timely filed and

ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (“[O]nce the period for granting a

motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the

appellate court’s jurisdiction.”).

In his response to our show cause order, appellant informs the court that he is a pro se

litigant and requests we retain this case on the court’s docket in the interest of justice. Appellant’s

appearance pro se does not confer jurisdiction on this court. See Campbell v. Leal, No. 04-12-

00654-CV, 2012 WL 5874622, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(dismissing appeal because appellant’s response to show cause order stating he was indigent and

pro se did not confer jurisdiction on the court). “Rather, a timely filed notice of appeal confers

jurisdiction on this court, and absent a timely filed notice of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal.”

Campbell, 2012 WL 5874622, at *1 (citing Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617). Accordingly, we must

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

-2-