Genny Houle v. Onetouchpoint Southwest Corp. dba Ginny's Printing and Christopher Woodall Appeal from 225th 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. 04-18-00104-CV Genny HOULE, Appellant v. ONETOUCHPOINT SOUTHWEST CORP. dba Ginny’s Printing and Christopher Woodall, Appellees From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015CI05284 Honorable Solomon Casseb III, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 2, 2018 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION In the underlying case, Appellant filed a premature motion for new trial on August 10, 2017. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.1(a). The trial court signed a final judgment on November 7, 2017. Appellant’s motion for new trial was deemed filed and effective on November 7, 2017. See id. Because Appellant’s notice of appeal appeared to be untimely, we ordered Appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 1 Appellant 1 On April 18, 2018, after the clerk’s record was not timely filed, we ordered Appellant to show cause in writing that the fee for the clerk’s record was paid. The clerk’s record was filed; our April 18, 2018 order is satisfied. 04-18-00104-CV timely filed a response styled as a “Motion to Show Cause in Response to the Court’s Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction.” To the degree that Appellant’s response is a motion, the motion is denied. Because Appellant’s response misinterprets the Texas Government Code, see TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 311.014(a) (West 2013) (“In computing a period of days, the first day is excluded and the last day is included.”), and the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a) (computing time), the response is unavailing. The trial court signed the judgment on November 7, 2017. The first day, November 7, 2017, was excluded, and the count began on November 8, 2017. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 311.014(a); TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a). Because Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due ninety days later. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Counting from November 8, 2017, the 90th day was February 5, 2018. See id. R. 4.1(a). The last day Appellant could file her notice of appeal was fifteen days later, on February 20, 2018. See id. R. 26.3. See generally Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (“[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 period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under Rule [26.3].” (emphasis added)). Appellant’s February 21, 2018 notice of appeal was filed one day after the last day to file the notice; the late notice did not invoke this court’s jurisdiction. See Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617 (“[O]nce the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.”). This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 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.
