In the Matter of R. H., a juvenile--Appeal from 369th District Court of Cherokee County

NO. 12-06-00420-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

APPEAL FROM THE 369TH

IN THE MATTER OF R.H., JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

A JUVENILE

CHEROKEE 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 October 20, 2006. 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, his notice of appeal was due to have been filed within 30 days after the judgment [was] signed, i.e., November 20, 2006. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial or other postjudgment motion that extended the appellate deadlines. Moreover, Appellant did not file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal.1 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Consequently, the time for perfecting Appellant s appeal was not extended. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Appellant filed his notice of appeal on December 15, 2006. Because the notice of appeal was not filed on or before November 20, 2006, this court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

On January 18, 2007, Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal. In his motion, he reasonably explains why his notice of appeal was not filed until December 15, 2006. However, 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. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

Opinion delivered January 31, 2007.

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

(PUBLISH)

1 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 15 day period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under Rule 26.3. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Following an implied motion for extension of time, it is an appellant s burden to establish a reasonable explanation for the needed extension. See Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. This rule does not apply here because Appellant s notice ofappeal was filed outside the 15 day period for filing a motion for extension of time. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.