MINERVA ELIZALDE v. STATE OF TEXAS AND HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS--Appeal from County Court at Law No 4 of Hidalgo County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-09-00581-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ MINERVA ELIZALDE, Appellant, v. STATE OF TEXAS AND HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Minerva Elizalde, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CCD-0019-D. Judgment in this cause was signed on July 21, 2009. A motion for new trial was not filed. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant s notice of appeal was due on August 20, 2009, but was not filed until September 8, 2009. 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 October 19, 2009, 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. The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant s failure to timely perfect her 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). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 17th day of December, 2009. 2
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.
