Walters, James A. v. 21st Century Insurance Co. & Financial Services

 
DISMISS; Opinion filed November 10, 2011
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-11-01391-CV
............................
JAMES A. WALTERS, Appellant
V.
21ST CENTURY INSURANCE CO. & FINANCIAL SERVICES, ET AL., Appellees
.............................................................
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-10-08240-A
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Richter, and Murphy
Opinion By Justice Bridges
 
On October 6, 2011, appellant filed his “motion for an extension
of time to file the appeal; and the appellant's record and to cause all
statutory and rule pre-requisites to be met and extended before the
appeal is actually heard for good cause not attributable to any acts or
errors of appellant.” On October 12, 2011, appellant amended his motion.
On October 13, 2011, he filed his notice of appeal.
To invoke this Court's jurisdiction, a party must file a timely
notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b). A notice of appeal must
be filed within thirty days of the date of judgment if no motion for new
trial is filed or within ninety days of the date of judgment if a motion
for new trial is filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant
states that he is appealing a judgment that was entered on February 18
and/or February 25, 2011. Assuming a timely motion for new trial was
filed and using the February 25 date, the notice of appeal was due, at
 
the latest, on June 5, 2011. Because June 5 was a Sunday, appellant was
required to file the notice of appeal by June 6, 2011. Walters filed his
notice of appeal on October 13, 2011, more than three months past its
due date. Appellant claims to have filed an “oral” notice of appeal with
the trial court in February, and mentions his two petitions for writ of
mandamus in his motion. However, neither an oral notice of appeal nor an
original proceeding constitutes a notice of appeal within the meaning of
the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.
Walters's notice of appeal failed to invoke this Court's
jurisdiction because it was untimely filed. Accordingly, we dismiss this
appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
 
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
111391F.P05
-------------------