Two Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Six Dollars v. State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

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

NO. 12-05-00363-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

 

TYLER, TEXAS

TWO THOUSAND FOUR

HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX DOLLARS, APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

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 July 14, 2005. Under rule of appellate procedure 26.1(a), unless Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial or other post judgment motion that extended the appellate deadlines, his notice of appeal was due to have been filed within 30 days after the judgment [was] signed, i.e., August 15, 2005. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. Although Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 14, 2005, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed on or before August 15, 2005.

On November 17, 2005, this Court notified Appellant pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a) that his notice of appeal was untimely, and it informed him that unless the record was amended by November 28, 2005 to establish the jurisdiction of this Court, the appeal would be dismissed. Although Appellant responded to this Court s dismissal notice before the November 28 deadline, he was unable to establish this Court s 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. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

Opinion delivered December 7, 2005.

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

Griffith, J., not participating.

(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.