Opinion
No. 07-20-00146-CV
07-30-2020
VANESSA MARQUEZ AND SALVADOR RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANTS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF CRISTOVAN FLORES, AS NEXT FRIEND OF C.F., APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 64th District Court Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. A43182-2002 , Honorable Danah Zirpoli, Presiding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ.
Appellants, Vanessa Marquez and Salvador Rodriguez, appeal from a protective order issued by the trial court. We dismiss the appeal because Appellants have not paid the filing fee and for want of jurisdiction.
Appellants failed to pay the required filing fee upon filing their notice of appeal. By letter of July 6, 2020, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellants that unless they were excused from paying court costs under Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1, failure to pay the filing fee by July 16 would result in dismissal of the appeal. To date, Appellants have not paid the filing fee or sought leave to proceed without payment of court costs. Because Appellants failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules and a notice from the Clerk requiring action within a specified time, we dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Furthermore, Appellants filed their notice of appeal untimely. The trial court signed the Protective Order on April 24, 2020. As no post-judgment motions or requests were filed, a notice of appeal was due within thirty days after the order was signed, i.e., by May 26, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a), 4.1(a). Appellants filed their notice of appeal on May 27, 2020, without filing a motion for an extension of time.
A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoking this court's jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 26.1. We may extend the time to file a notice of appeal by fifteen days if an appellant files a notice of appeal and a motion for an extension of time that reasonably explains the need for an extension. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b). A motion for extension is implied if the notice of appeal is filed within fifteen days after the notice deadline. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). However, an appellant must still reasonably explain the delay in filing the notice of appeal when a motion for extension is implied. Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998).
Appellants filed their notice of appeal within fifteen days of the appellate deadline but did not file a motion for an extension of time. By letter of July 8, 2020, we notified Appellants that a motion for extension was implied and directed them to file a written response explaining why their notice of appeal was filed untimely. We advised Appellants that if they did not file a response by July 21, we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellants have not filed a response to date. Because Appellants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their untimely notice of appeal, we cannot grant an implied motion for extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b); Phillips v. Gunn, No. 07-14-00094-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4027, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 11, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). And, as their late notice of appeal failed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Per Curiam