Salvador De Anda v. Rosalinda Proenza and Helen Rodriguez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 29, 2012
• Docket: 13-12-00549-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-12-00549-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ___________________________________________________________

SALVADOR DE ANDA, Appellant,

v.

ROSALINDA PROENZA AND HELEN RODRIGUEZ, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Salvador De Anda, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment

entered by the County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number

2008-CCL-01097-B. Judgment in this cause was signed on June 6, 2012. Pursuant to

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on July 6,

2012, but was not filed until August 20, 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. 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.BAmarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567

(Tex. App.BWaco 2002, no pet.).

On September 14, 2012, 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

Delivered and filed the 29th day of November, 2012.