NUMBER 13-12-00549-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________
SALVADOR DE ANDA, Appellant,
v.
ROSALINDA PROENZA AND HELEN RODRIGUEZ, Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Salvador De Anda, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment
entered by the County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number
2008-CCL-01097-B. Judgment in this cause was signed on June 6, 2012. Pursuant to
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on July 6,
2012, but was not filed until August 20, 2012.
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.).
On September 14, 2012, 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 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).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
29th day of November, 2012.
2