Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00022-CV
Reynaldo FLORES,
Appellant
v.
Mayra RUBIO,
Appellee
From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-CI-03151
Honorable Gloria Saldaña, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 8, 2013
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
On April 4, 2012, the trial court signed a default protective order. Pro se Appellant
Reynaldo Flores, who is presently an inmate, has not filed a notice of appeal, and, other than the
judgment, we have no appellate record before us. If Appellant timely filed another document
with the trial court that extended the due date for his notice of appeal, his notice of appeal was
due not later than August 2, 2012. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). A motion for extension of time
was due not later than August 17, 2012. See id. R. 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615,
617 (Tex. 1997). If Appellant met the requirements for a restricted appeal, a notice of restricted
04-13-00022-CV
appeal was due not later than October 4, 2012. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c), 30. A motion for
extension of time to file a restricted appeal was due not later than October 19, 2012. See id. R.
26.3; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see also Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch
Indep. Sch. Dist., 180 S.W.3d 903, 904 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied).
On January 10, 2013, Appellant filed a pro se “Motion for Leave to File Late Notice of
Appeal.” We construed Appellant’s motion as “an instrument [filed] in a bona fide attempt to
invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.” See Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; accord In re K.A.F.,
160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005). On January 24, 2013, we advised Appellant that a timely
notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this court’s appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.
25.1(b). See generally Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. We ordered Appellant to show cause in
writing to this court by February 13, 2013, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. We warned Appellant that if he failed to respond within the time provided, the
appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Appellant filed no timely response to our
January 24, 2013 order, and we dismissed his appeal.
On March 7, 2013, this court received an “Objection to Memorandum of Opinion
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction” from Appellant which we construed as a timely motion for
rehearing. In his motion, Appellant stated that he did not receive our January 24, 2013 order
until after the deadline, and this court’s records confirm Appellant’s assertion. On March 20,
2013, we granted Appellant’s motion for rehearing, reinstated his appeal, and again ordered
Appellant to show cause in writing why his appeal should not be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
On April 24, 2013, Appellant filed a brief that argues the merits of his appeal but does
not show how this court has jurisdiction in this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b). See
generally Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. Therefore, Appellant’s motion for leave to file a late
-2-
04-13-00022-CV
notice of appeal is denied, and this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 25.1(b); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. Costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellant.
PER CURIAM
-3-