Gordon Ridley v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 146th District Court of Bell County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-08-00360-CV Gordon Ridley, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 214,156-B, HONORABLE RICK MORRIS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 28, 2008, Gordon Ridley, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal from a district court order of forfeiture entered on December 29, 2005. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 59.01-.14 (West 2006 & Supp. 2008). Ridley s 2008 notice of appeal from the 2005 order was untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.1 This Court requested a written response demonstrating our jurisdiction over this appeal. Ridley s response did not demonstrate this Court s jurisdiction. 1 Ridley s notice of appeal is untimely, even if it were considered an attempted restricted appeal, because the notice of appeal was not filed within six months after the judgment was signed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 26.1(c). Ridley s response argues that the 2005 order was entered without his knowledge. But the civil procedure rule that allows the extension of certain deadlines when a party proves late notice of judgment does not extend the time for perfecting a restricted appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 4.2(a)(2); Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); see Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: September 18, 2008 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.
