John E. Larson v. Danny Ray Vargas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00167-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00167-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

JOHN E. LARSON, Appellant,

v.

DANNY RAY VARGAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 10 OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On April 7, 2025, appellant filed

a notice of appeal attempting to appeal a judgment signed on November 4, 2024, in trial

court cause number CL-24-3442-J. On April 11, 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 of other deficiencies with the notice of appeal and indicated that if the defects were not corrected within thirty days of the date of the notice, the matter would be referred

to the Court.

Appellant has failed to respond to the 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).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the 12th day of August, 2025.