Florentina Acosta, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Andres Acosta and Ruben Acosta, Sr. v. City of Austin; Austin Regional Anti-Drug Task Force; Blanco County; Hays County; Mike Thompson; and Al Alvarez--Appeal from 299th District Court of Travis County

cv6-316.dd.acosta TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-96-00316-CV
Florentina Acosta, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Andres Acosta,
and Ruben Acosta, Sr., Appellants
v.
City of Austin; Austin Regional Anti-Drug Task Force; Blanco County; Hays County;
Mike Thompson; and Al Alvarez, Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 92-14264, HONORABLE PETE LOWRY, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

 

We must dismiss this cause because the transcript was filed late.

The trial court signed its final judgment on February 22, 1996. Under the current appellate rules, the appellant bears the burden to see that a sufficient record is presented to this Court. Tex. R. App. P. 50(d). In cases with timely filed motions for new trial, the transcript is due within 120 days after the judgment was signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 54(a). The transcript-filing deadline in this case was June 21, 1996. Appellants who want more time to file the transcript must file a motion for extension of time to file the transcript within fifteen days after the transcript's due date. Tex. R. App. P. 54(c). That deadline in this case was July 8, 1996. This Court received the transcript on July 18, 1996. The appellants filed their motion to extend time for filing the transcript and the statement of facts on August 1, 1996.

The transcript and the motion to extend time to file the transcript were not timely filed. We cannot extend filing deadlines absent a timely motion. We overrule the motion to extend time to file the transcript. The transcript is incurably late and cannot be filed. Because there can be no transcript properly before us, the jurisdiction-invoking instruments are not before us, and we must dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss all remaining pending motions and dismiss the appeal.

 

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith

Appeal Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 18, 1996

Do Not Publish