NUMBER 13-09-00581-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
MINERVA ELIZALDE, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS AND HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Minerva Elizalde, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment
entered by the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number
CCD-0019-D. Judgment in this cause was signed on July 21, 2009. A motion for new trial
was not filed. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant’s notice of
appeal was due on August 20, 2009, but was not filed until September 8, 2009.
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.).
On October 19, 2009, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that
steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was 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 appellant.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s
failure to timely perfect her appeal, and appellant’s 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 17th
day of December, 2009.
2