Opinion
No. 05-05-00641-CV
Opinion Filed July 5, 2005.
On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 04-01714.
Dismiss.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices LANG-MIERS and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Edward E. Sigmond, Jr. appeals the November 11, 2004 judgment in this case. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 6, 2005 — 167 days after the final judgment was signed. He filed a timely motion for new trial, which extended the time to file the notice of appeal until February 9, 2005, ninety days after the judgment was signed. See Tex.R.App.P. 26.1.
In a letter dated May 11, 2005, the Court instructed appellant to file, within ten days, a letter brief explaining its jurisdiction over this matter. In response, appellant asserts that after a hearing on his motion for new trial, the trial court indicated he would deny the motion and directed appellee to draft an order to that effect. Appellee did not, and the motion was ultimately overruled by operation of law. Appellant asserts that had he known appellee was going to ignore the trial court's directive, he would have prepared a proposed order himself and would have "timely filed Defendant's Notice of Appeal." Appellant ultimately filed a proposed order on the motion for new trial and a motion for exception under rule 306a. The trial court signed the order denying a new trial on March 24, 2005 and denied the rule 306a motion on April 28, 2005. Appellant asserts these circumstances render his notice of appeal timely. We disagree.
Initially, we note that the trial court had lost plenary jurisdiction at the time he signed the two orders in March and April. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(e). Regardless, the appellate timetable commenced with the date of the signing of the final judgment, or November 11, 2004. See Tex.R.App.P. 26.1. To the extent appellant argues that the time for filing his notice of appeal began to run when the trial court denied his subsequent motions for new trial and for relief under 306a, he is incorrect. See Naaman v. Grider, 126 S.W.3d 73, 73-74 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam). To the extent he argues that appellee's action should, in some way, suspend the well-settled rules regarding this Court's jurisdiction, we cannot agree. Even if we were inclined to agree that appellee's conduct was improper, which we are not, there is nothing in the law that would allow this Court to ignore the rules of appellate procedure to unlawfully extend our jurisdiction.
Appellant had ninety days, or until February 11, 2005, to file his notice of appeal. He did not file notice of appeal until May 6, 2005. Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider his appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 26.1.
On the Court's own motion, this appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(a).