NUMBER 13-15-00115-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________
JULIE CHAU, Appellant,
v.
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES D/B/A
HARLINGEN MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 445th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Julie Chau, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by
the 445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 2012-DCL-921-I.
Judgment in this cause was signed on January 27, 2015.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides that an appeal is perfected when
notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for
new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). 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.BAmarillo 2004, no
pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.BWaco 2002, no pet.).
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal
was due on February 26, 2015, but was not filed until March 4, 2015. On March 11,
2015, 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 providing
a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellant=s failure to timely perfect his 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).
2
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
16th day of April, 2015.
3