Opinion
05-22-00344-CV
07-05-2022
IN THE INTEREST OF A.G., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JC-20-711X
Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
Appellant appeals from the trial court's January 4, 2022 order in a suit concerning the parent-child relationship. Although appellant filed a timely motion for new trial, she filed her notice of appeal on April 15, 2022, eleven days past the due date. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(B). BECAUSE APPELLANT FILED THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WITHIN THE FIFTEEN-DAY GRACE PERIOD, WE INFORMED HER THAT SHE COULD REMEDY THE TIMELINESS PROBLEM BY FILING A MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE NOTICE OF APPEAL THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE 10.5(B)(1) AND (2). See id. 26.3. Appellant filed an extension motion but failed to provide the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension, as rule 10.5(b)(1)(C) requires. See Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam) (defining reasonable explanation for a late-filed notice of appeal as "any plausible statement of circumstances indicating that failure to file within the [specified] period was not deliberate or intentional, but was the result of inadvertence, mistake, or mischance."). Accordingly, by order dated June 9, 2022, we denied the motion without prejudice to filing a rule-compliant motion within ten days. To date, appellant has not complied.
Because appellant's notice of appeal was untimely and she has failed to remedy the problem by filing an extension motion that complies with rule 10.5(b)(1)(C), we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(A); Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh'g) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional).
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.