John E. Larson v. Danny Ray Vargas

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

2

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.