Joe C. Medellin v. Rebecca Medellin
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00648-CV
Joe C. MEDELLIN, Appellant
v.
Rebecca MEDELLIN, Appellee
From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2005-CI-07696 Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 7, 2012
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
The trial court signed a final judgment on June 8, 2012. Appellant filed a timely motion
for new trial on July 6, 2012. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on September 6,
2012. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 1, 2012.
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. 04-12-00648-CV
Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). But “once
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.” Id.
By order dated October 11, 2012, appellant was ordered to show cause in writing by
October 26, 2012, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant
did not respond to this court’s order. Because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed,
this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Joe C. Medellin v. Rebecca Medellin (Joe C. Medellin v. Rebecca Medellin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.