David Bailey v. Tanisha Golden
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued November 21, 2012 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00937-CV ____________ DAVID BAILEY, Appellant V. TANISHA GOLDEN, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CI045715 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant David Bailey attempts to appeal from the trial court s judgment signed April 12, 2012. Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to 90 days after the date the judgment is signed if any party timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain circumstances, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). To be considered timely, a motion for new trial must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is signed. TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a). The record reflects that the trial court signed the judgment on April 12, 2012. The record shows that appellant did not file a motion for new trial or anything else that extended the deadline to file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Thus, the deadline to file the notice of appeal was May 12, 2012. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on September 19, 2012. Appellant s notice of appeal was untimely filed. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1. On October 24, 2012, we notified appellant that this appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by November 5, 2012, he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant responded, asserting that the trial court clerk failed to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a(3) and that he never received notice of the April 12, 2012 judgment from the trial court. 2 Failure of the trial court clerk to comply with Rule 306a will not affect the periods of time running from the signing of the judgment, unless a party follows the procedures of Rule 306a(4) to modify the periods within ninety days of the date the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(3). Appellant did not follow the procedures of Rule 306a(4) within ninety days of the date the judgment was signed. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(4). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
