Ron Ray v. Bexar County Appraisal District; and Bexar County Appraisal Review Board--Appeal from 407th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00212-CV Ron RAY, Appellant v. BEXAR COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT and Bexar County Appraisal Review Board, Appellees From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006-CI-09052 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 9, 2008 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION The trial court signed a final judgment on February 27, 2008. Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion for reinstatement, or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on March 28, 2008. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on April 14, 2008. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant filed his notice on appeal on March 31, 2008. 04–08-00212-CV Although appellant filed a notice of appeal within the fifteen-day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, he did not file a motion for extension of time. 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 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26); Dimotsis v. State Farm Lloyds, 966 S.W.2d 657, 657 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (stating same under current Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). Therefore, on May 27, 2008, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Our order also cautioned appellant that if he did not respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant has not responded to our order; therefore, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). PER CURIAM -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.