Opinion issued July 12, 2012.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-12-00070-CV
____________
MICHAEL SERGES, Appellant
V.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 190th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2010-13243
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Michael Serges, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s judgment
signed September 26, 2011. Because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely
filed, we dismiss.
Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is
signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended
to 90 days after the date the judgment is signed if any party timely files a motion for
new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain
circumstances, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 26.1(a). We may extend the time to file the notice of appeal if, within 15
days after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, the party properly files a motion
for extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. 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 15-day extension period
provided by Rule 26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959
S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).
The record reflects that appellant timely filed a motion for new trial, which
extended the deadline for appellant to file his notice of appeal to 90 days from the
date the judgment was signed, or Tuesday, December 27, 2011. See TEX. R. APP. P.
26.1(a). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed until Friday, January 20, 2012.
Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file his notice of appeal and did not
file his notice of appeal within the Verburgt period. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3;
Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.
2
Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. Without a timely filed
notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
25.1.
On May 2, 2012, we notified appellant that his appeal was subject to
dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by May 14, 2012, he filed a response
showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant did not file a response.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.
3