Rodolfo Renteria v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 22, 2009
• Docket: 13-08-00538-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-08-00538-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ______________________________________________________________

RODOLFO RENTERIA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. _____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. ______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Rodolfo Renteria, pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment

entered by the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number

2007-10-5404-A. Judgment in this cause was signed on July 29, 2008. Pursuant to Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on August 28,

2008, but was not filed until September 9, 2008. 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. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the predecessor to

Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing: it

is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins, 140 S.W.3d 462,

462 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.–Waco

2002, no pet.).

On September 17, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so

that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised

that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s

letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from

appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s

failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant’s failure to respond to this Court’s notice,

is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly,

the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX . R. APP. P.

42.3(a)(c).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 22nd day of January, 2009.