JUAN LIMON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ELIDA LIMON, DECEASED v. RODOLFO GUERRERO, M. D.--Appeal from 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-10-00143-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ JUAN LIMON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ELIDA LIMON, DECEASED, Appellant, v. RODOLFO GUERRERO, M. D., Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Juan Limon, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Elida Limon, deceased, attempted to perfect an agreed appeal of an interlocutory order entered by the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo, County, Texas, in cause no. C-546-07-B. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ยง51.014 (d); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.2. The trial court signed a written order granting permission to appeal on February 24, 2010. Appellant=s notice of appeal was due on March 16, 2010, but was not filed until March 23, 2010. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within twenty days after the date the trial court signs a written order granting permission to appeal, unless the court of appeals extends the time for filing pursuant to Rule 26.3. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing: it is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins, 140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex. App.BAmarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.BWaco 2002, no pet.). On March 25, 2010, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court=s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant=s failure to respond to this Court=s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of 2 jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 5th day of August, 2010. 3
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.
