In the Matter of the Marriage of Mark Anthony Tijerina and Michelle Tijerina Appeal from 237th District Court of Lubbock County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-22-00085-CV IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF MARK ANTHONY TIJERINA AND MICHELLE TIJERINA On Appeal from the 237th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020-539,727, Honorable Les Hatch, Presiding April 21, 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, Michelle Tijerina, appeals from the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce. The trial court signed the divorce decree on December 8, 2021. As no post-judgment motions or requests for findings were filed, a notice of appeal was due within thirty days after the order was signed, by January 7, 2022. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 23, 2022, accompanied by a motion requesting an extension of time to file the late appeal. The motion explained that appellant’s counsel was retained on March 23, 2022, and filed a notice of appeal that day. A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoking this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. 1997). Under Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, we may grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal if the notice and a motion requesting an extension are filed within fifteen days of the appellate deadline. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. We are, however, prohibited from enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal any further. See Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 616-17; TEX. R. APP. P. 2 (providing that we may not suspend a rule’s operation or order a different procedure to alter the time for perfecting an appeal). By letter of March 29, 2022, we notified appellant that her notice of appeal appeared untimely and directed her to file a response by April 8 showing grounds for continuing the appeal or the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant has not a filed a response or had any further communication with this Court to date. Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion for an extension and dismiss her untimely appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 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.
