|
|
|
|
Opinion filed November 1, 2007
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-07-00313-CV
__________
MARK KUPSTIS, Appellant
V.
FIELD OFFICER DAVIS ET AL, Appellees
On Appeal from the 259th District Court
Jones County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 20,633
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant=s pro se lawsuit was dismissed on May 30, 2007. A motion for new trial was not filed. On October 18, 2007, appellant filed in this court his notice of appeal. On the same date, the clerk of this court wrote the parties advising them that it appeared that an appeal had not been timely perfected and requesting appellant to respond showing grounds for continuing the appeal.
Appellant has responded by contending that the trial court=s letter dated October 5, 2007, addressed to him at the Robinson Unit advising him that his case was dismissed on May 30, 2007, establishes when he received notice of the dismissal. Therefore, under Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a(4), appellant argues that he has timely perfected this appeal because he filed his notice of appeal within twenty days of the October 5 letter. We disagree.
Appellant correctly notes that Rule 306a(4) allows a party who has neither received notice of a judgment nor acquired actual knowledge of a judgment additional time in which to perfect an appeal. However, Rule 306a(4) also provides that Ain no event shall such [appellate due dates] begin more than ninety days after the original judgment or other appealable order was signed.@ Under the facts of this case, the last day a notice of appeal could be timely filed under the provisions of Rule 306a(4) was August 28, 2007, ninety days after the judgment was signed. Moreover, we note that appellant has failed to comply with the requirements of Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a for establishing when notice was received.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
November 1, 2007
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.