NUMBER 13-11-00180-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________
DORA BELIA HERNANDEZ, Apellant,
v.
LUIS GERARDO BARRAGAN, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 449th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Dora Belia Hernandez, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment
entered by the 449th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number
F-1091-08-K. Judgment in this cause was signed on December 22, 2010. A motion for
new trial was filed on January 18, 2011. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on March 22, 2011, but was not filed until
March 30, 2011.
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 April 6, 2011, 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. On April 15, 2011, appellant filed a “Motion for
Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Timely Perfected Appeal” requesting sixty days to
hire an appellate attorney and “prepare a timely perfected appeal.” The Court granted
appellant’s motion until June 17, 2011. On several occasions thereafter, the Clerk of the
Court contacted appellant’s attorney regarding the status of filing a motion for extension
of time to file notice of appeal.
On December 12, 2011, the Clerk of this Court again 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
2
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 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
26th day of January, 2012.
3