Reynaldo Flores v. Mayra Rubio--Appeal from 224th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00022-CV Reynaldo FLORES, Appellant v. Mayra RUBIO, Appellee From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012-CI-03151 Honorable Victor Hugo Negron Jr., Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 27, 2013 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION On April 4, 2012, the trial court signed a default protective order. Appellant has not filed a notice of appeal, and, other than the judgment, we have no appellate record before us. If Appellant timely filed another document with the trial court that extended the due date for his notice of appeal, his notice of appeal was due not later than August 2, 2012. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). A motion for extension of time was due not later than August 17, 2012. See id. R. 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). A notice of restricted appeal was due not later than October 4, 2012. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c). A motion for extension of time to file a 04-13-00022-CV restricted appeal was due not later than October 19, 2012. See id. R. 26.3; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. On January 10, 2013, appellant Reynaldo Flores filed a pro se Motion for Leave to File Late Notice of Appeal. We construed Appellant s motion as an instrument [filed] in a bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court s jurisdiction. See Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; accord In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005). On January 24, 2013, we advised Appellant that a timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this court s appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b). See generally Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. We ordered Appellant to show cause in writing to this court by February 13, 2013, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We warned Appellant that if he failed to respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. To date, Appellant has filed no response to our January 24, 2013 order. Therefore, Appellant s motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal is denied, and this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. Costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellant. 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.
