DISMISS; and Opinion Filed August 18, 2014.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-00716-CV
JOSE SYLVESTERE LOPEZ, Appellant
V.
CLAUDIA LOPEZ, Appellee
On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-05531-S
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang
Opinion by Justice Lang
By notice of appeal dated April 26, 2013, Jose Sylvestere Lopez, appearing pro se,
challenges a September 12, 2011 final decree of divorce, dissolving his marriage to Claudia O.
Medellin, formerly Claudia Lopez, and dividing their property. Because the notice of appeal was
filed outside any time frames listed in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26, which governs the
time to perfect appeals, we directed Lopez and Medellin to file letter briefs explaining how the
Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3. Lopez filed a jurisdictional
letter brief claiming he first received notice or acquired actual knowledge of the divorce decree
in April 2013.
Our jurisdiction is invoked upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal from a final
judgment. Lehman v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Garza v. Hibernia Nat'l
Bank, 227 S.W.3d 233, 233 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Generally, the
deadline to file a notice of appeal runs from the date of judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 4.2
(providing that if notice of judgment is not received within twenty days after judgment is signed,
deadline runs from date notice is received, but no later than ninety days from signing of
judgment). Rule 26.1 provides four time frames for filing a notice of appeal. See id. 26.1.
These time frames are based on the type of judgment or order being appealed and range from
twenty days in an accelerated appeal to six months in a restricted appeal. See id. Additionally,
rule 26.3 provides for one fifteen-day extension of time. See id. 26.3.
Based on the time frames listed in rule 26, the notice of appeal here, filed almost two
years after the complained-of judgment, is untimely and fails to invoke our jurisdiction. See
Garza, 227 S.W.3d 233. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/Douglas S. Lang/
DOUGLAS S. LANG
130716F.P05 JUSTICE
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JOSE SYLVESTERE LOPEZ, Appellant On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-13-00716-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-05531-S.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices
CLAUDIA LOPEZ, Appellee Moseley and Francis participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want
of jurisdiction.
It is ORDERED that appellee CLAUDIA LOPEZ recover her costs of this appeal from
appellant JOSE SYLVESTERE LOPEZ.
Judgment entered this 18th day of August, 2014.
–3–
Jose Sylvestere Lopez v. Claudia Lopez
Combined Opinion