NUMBER 13-14-00694-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________
ALBERTO R. GARZA AND
LETICIA I. GARZA, AS NEXT
FRIENDS OF ALEXANDRA I.
GARZA AND KASSANDRA R.
GARZA, Appellants,
v.
BURCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 92nd District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellants, Alberto R. Garza and Leticia I. Garza, as next friends of Alexandra I.
Garza and Kassandra R. Garza, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered
by the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-928-08-A.
Judgment in this cause was signed on September 15, 2014.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides that an appeal is perfected when
notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for
new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial
has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the judgment is
signed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a).
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.).
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellants’ notice of appeal
was due on October 15, 2014, but was not filed until December 2, 2014. On December
3, 2014, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants of this defect so that steps could be
taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were 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 appellants.
2
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellants’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants’ 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
22nd day of January, 2015.
3