Kappy Earl Joe Jr. v. Michelle Marie Vasquez-Joe

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00126-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 19, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00126-CV ——————————— KAPPY EARL JOE, JR., Appellant V. MICHELLE MARIE VASQUEZ-JOE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 247th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2024-30408

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant is attempting to appeal from an order of dismissal for want of

prosecution signed on December 3, 2025. Although appellant claimed he had filed

a motion to reinstate, a supplemental clerk’s record filed on June 26, 2025 indicated that no motion to reinstate was located in the trial court file. Appellant’s notice of

appeal was filed on February 21, 2025.

A notice of appeal is generally required to be filed within 30 days after the

judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. This 30-day deadline may be extended

to 90 days after the judgment is signed if appellant files a timely motion for new trial

or other post-judgment motion. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b. The appellate court may

also extend the time to file the notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the deadline

for filing it, appellant files the notice of appeal in the trial court and files a motion

for extension of time in the appellate court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.

Because the record indicates no motion to reinstate or other post-judgment

motion was filed, appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed within 30 days of

the date the trial court signed the order of dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a).

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed more than two and a half months after the trial

court signed its judgment. Accordingly, the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Absent a timely-filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.

See In the Interest of K.A.F., A Child, 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005).

The Court notified appellant by order issued on July 29, 2025, that the appeal

might be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response by

August 8, 2025, establishing this Court’s jurisdiction. No response was filed.

2 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guiney, and Morgan.