RONALD LEE LEWIS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County

NUMBER 13-02-425-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

RONALD LEE LEWIS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 92nd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, & Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellee, the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, contending that appellant Ronald Lee Lewis=s notice of appeal was not timely filed. We agree and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The judgment terminating appellant=s parental rights was signed on December 7, 1998. Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed until July 17, 2002, more than three years following the entry of judgment. The notice of appeal was not timely filed under either Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 concerning the time to perfect appeal in civil cases, or rule 26.3, governing extensions of time to file notices of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1; Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Because appellant=s perfecting instrument was neither filed within the deadline for filing the notice, nor filed during the period within which an extension to file the notice could have been granted, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997); Kinnard v. Carnahan, 25 S.W.3d 266, 268 (Tex. App.BSan Antonio 2000, no pet.). The appellate court may not alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case. See Tex. R. App. P. 2. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appeals in termination cases have been classified as accelerated appeals since September 1, 2001. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 109.002(a) (Vernon Supp. 2002); However, this section of the family code only applies to appeals in suits pending on or filed on or after September 1, 2001. See id. historical note. Thus, we do not apply the rules for accelerated appeals to the instant case. Even if we were to do so, the notice of appeal would still be untimely, and we would continue to lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b); Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.

Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 12th day of September, 2002.