In the Matter of C. G., a juvenile--Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Smith County

Annotate this Case
MARY'S OPINION HEADING /**/

NO. 12-05-00332-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

 

TYLER, TEXAS

 

APPEAL FROM THE

 

IN THE MATTER OF C.G., COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF

A JUVENILE

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a). The trial court s judgment was signed on June 13, 2005. Under rule of appellate procedure 26.1(a), unless Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial or other postjudgment motion that extended the appellate deadlines, her notice of appeal was due to have been filed within 30 days after the judgment [was] signed, i.e., July 13, 2005. Although on July 14, 2005, Appellant filed a motion for new trial, because the motion was filed more than thirty days after judgment, the motion was untimely. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329(a). Consequently, the time for perfecting Appellant s appeal was not extended. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 11, 2005. However, because the notice of appeal was not filed on or before July 13, 2005, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

On October 13, 2005, this Court notified Appellant pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a) that her notice of appeal was untimely, and it informed her that unless, on or before October 24, 2005, the record was amended to establish the jurisdiction of this Court, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has neither responded to this Court s notice or otherwise established jurisdiction.

Because this Court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as provided by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

Opinion delivered October 31, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

 

(PUBLISH)

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.