i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-09-00116-CV
Rogelio LOPEZ,
Appellant
v.
Rosa Maria LOPEZ,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law, Val Verde County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2486
Honorable Sergio J. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 6, 2009
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
The trial court signed a final judgment on September 22, 2008. Because Appellant filed a
motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on December 22, 2008. See TEX . R.
APP . P. 26.1(a). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on January 6,
2009. See TEX . R. APP . P. 26.3. Appellant, however, did not file his notice of appeal until February
25, 2009. Appellant did not file a motion for extension of time. Thus, Appellant’s notice of appeal
was untimely filed.
04-09-00116-CV
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 (Tex.1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). But “once the period for granting a
motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate
court’s jurisdiction.” Id.
We, therefore, ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant responded to our order, but failed to show that we have
jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
-2-
Rogelio Lopez v. Rosa Maria Lopez
Combined Opinion