TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-04-00085-CV
Mary Moran, Appellant
v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Appellee
NO. 98-14145, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
The judgment in this case was signed October 28, 2003. A motion for new trial was timely filed; accordingly, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on or before January 26, 2004. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). The notice of appeal was not filed until February 11, 2004, sixteen days late. No timely motion for extension of time was filed. (1) The clerk's office notified appellant of this problem and requested proof of timely mailing or an affidavit swearing that the filing was timely mailed. See id. 9.2(b), (c). In response, appellant stated that the filing deadline was mistakenly calculated and the notice of appeal had not been filed until February 11, 2004. (2) Because a late-filed notice of appeal does not confer jurisdiction on this court, we must dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (court may not alter time for perfecting appeal); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.
__________________________________________
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: May 6, 2004
1. Because appellant filed the notice of appeal more than fifteen days late, the instrument itself cannot serve as an implied motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).
2. We note that the date of service (by telefacsimile) shown in the certificate of service is February 11, as well.