From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramsour v. Thompson

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Feb 8, 2018
NUMBER 13-18-00010-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 8, 2018)

Opinion

NUMBER 13-18-00010-CV

02-08-2018

DANIEL RAMSOUR, Appellant, v. M. THOMPSON, ET AL., Appellees.


On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Appellant, Daniel Ramsour, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas, in cause number B-17-1067-CV-C. Judgment in this cause was signed on August 2, 2017. No motion for new trial was filed. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant's notice of appeal was due on September 1, 2017, but was not filed until January 4, 2018.

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 fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing: it is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins, 140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex. App.-- Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.-- Waco 2002, no pet.).

On January 5, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court's letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant's failure to respond to this Court's notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).

/s/ Rogelio Valdez

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice Delivered and filed the 8th day of February, 2018.


Summaries of

Ramsour v. Thompson

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Feb 8, 2018
NUMBER 13-18-00010-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 8, 2018)
Case details for

Ramsour v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL RAMSOUR, Appellant, v. M. THOMPSON, ET AL., Appellees.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Date published: Feb 8, 2018

Citations

NUMBER 13-18-00010-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 8, 2018)