Charles R. Johnson, Sr. v. SWEPCO Southwestern Electric Power Co. Appeal from 202nd District Court of Bowie County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-23-00015-CV CHARLES R. JOHNSON, SR., Appellant V. SWEPCO SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER CO., Appellee On Appeal from the 202nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 21C0613-202 Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 9, 2023, the trial court entered a traditional and no-evidence summary judgment in favor of SWEPCO Southwestern Electric Power Co. against Charles R. Johnson, Sr. Because Johnson did not file a motion or request that extended the deadline to file a notice of appeal, the notice of appeal was due on February 8, 2023, which was thirty days after the judgment was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Johnson filed his notice of appeal on February 17, 2023, making it untimely. Although the fifteen-day motion for extension of time contemplated by Rule 26.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure is implied in civil cases, an appellant must also provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing to avoid dismissal of the appeal. In re G.J.P., 314 S.W.3d 217, 221 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. denied). By letter dated March 7, 2023, we requested that Johnson file, with this Court, a reasonable explanation for the late filing of his notice of appeal. We warned Johnson that, if we did not receive an adequate response within thirty days of the date of our letter, we could dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Although Johnson responded to our letter, his response did not provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing of his notice of appeal. As a result, this appeal is ripe for dismissal. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Scott E Stevens Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: April 11, 2023 April 12, 2023 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.
