From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crenshaw v. Vanguard Comm.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Apr 15, 2003
No. 05-03-00242-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 15, 2003)

Opinion

No. 05-03-00242-CV.

Opinion Filed April 15, 2003.

Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 01-03982-K.

DISMISS.

Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices MOSELEY and O'NEILL.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appellant's March 11, 2003 "amended notice of appeal and request for extension of time to file" states that she is appealing a final judgment signed by the trial court on October 30, 2002 and the denial of a motion for new trial on January 13, 2003. Although appellant labels her March 11, 2003 document an "amended notice of appeal and request for extension of time to file," she does not request an extension of time or comply with requirements of appellate rule 26.3 regarding a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Under rule 26.3, an appellate court may extend the time to file the notice of appeal, "within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal."

In this case, the final judgment was signed on October 30, 2002 and appellant filed her original notice of appeal on February 18, 2003, one-hundred and eleven days after the judgment was signed. If a timely motion for new trial was filed in this case, the time to file a notice of appeal was extended until January 28, 2003, ninety days from the date the judgment was signed. With the 15 day extension, a timely notice of appeal may be filed up to 105 days after the judgment was signed. Here, however, the notice of appeal was filed 111 days after judgment was signed. Even if a request for extension in compliance with rule 26.3 were pending before this Court, the 15 day extension would not cure the untimeliness of appellant's notice of appeal. Accordingly, appellant's request for extension is DENIED.

By the Court's letter dated March 12, 2003, appellant was instructed to file, within ten days, a jurisdictional letter brief addressing the Court's concern regarding the untimeliness of this appeal and the Court's jurisdiction. Appellant was instructed that failure to respond would result in the dismissal of her appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant has failed to respond with a jurisdictional brief.

On the Court's own motion, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(a).


Summaries of

Crenshaw v. Vanguard Comm.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Apr 15, 2003
No. 05-03-00242-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 15, 2003)
Case details for

Crenshaw v. Vanguard Comm.

Case Details

Full title:SANDRA CRENSHAW, Appellant v. VANGUARD COMMUNICATIONS d/b/a DALLAS…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Apr 15, 2003

Citations

No. 05-03-00242-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 15, 2003)