TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-02-00223-CV
In the Interest of K.A.G., Appellant
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 99-FL-420, HONORABLE DULCE MADRIGAL, JUDGE PRESIDING
On November 9, 2001, the district court signed its final order establishing the parent-child
relationship, appointing conservators, and setting child support. Jacinto Solis, who by his answer admitted
paternity and was adjudicated the child=s father, filed a timely motion for new trial. Accordingly, his notice
of appeal was due February 7, 2002. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 26.1(a)(1). Any motion for extension, express
or implied,1 was due February 22, 2002. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. On March 29, 2002, the clerk of this
Court received a document labeled AMotion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Record and Motion for
Extension of Time to File Appellant=s Brief.@ Attached to the motion was an affidavit of indigence. See
generally Tex. R. App. P. 20. As neither this Court nor the trial court had ever received a notice of
appeal, the clerk of this Court considered the document as a notice of appeal. However, that notice was
untimely. Even the apparent date of its preparation,2 March 1, 2002, is too late to confer jurisdiction on this
1
See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (receipt of document within fifteen-day
period to file motion for extension implies motion for extension of time to file that document).
2
Soliz is an inmate proceeding pro se. Even if we were to allow for possible problems in mailing the
document, the preparation date itself is too late.
Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (may not alter time for perfecting appeal in civil case). Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
Lee Yeakel, Justice
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: May 16, 2002
Do Not Publish
2