Opinion issued October 1, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 00230
- CV

——————————— BARRY DEWAYNE DAWSON , Appellant

V. SHANNON LEE DAWSON , Appellee
On Appeal from the 312th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2012
- 11733

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant , Barry Dewayne Dawson, attempts to appeal from the trial court’ s judgment signed November 30, 2012. We dismiss the appeal. Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is signed

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is2

extended to 90 days after the date the judgment is signed if, within 30 days after the judgment is signed, any party files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain circumstances, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id .; T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b(a), (g). The time to file a notice of appeal may also be extended if, within 15 days aft er the deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party properly files a motion for extension. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 10.5(b), 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 15

- day extension period provided by Rule
26.3. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Here, the trial court signed the final judgment on November 30, 2012

. Dawso n timely filed a motion for new trial on December 29, 2012

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b. Therefore, Dawson’s notice of appeal was due by F ebruary 28,
2013

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1. Dawson untimely filed his notice of appeal , which was not signed by
Dawson or his counsel, on March 16 , 2013. 1 Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.1.

1 The deadline for filing Dawson’ s notice of appeal w ith an implied 15

- day extension was March 15, 2013. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Therefore, Dawson’s notice of3

On July 24 , 2013 , we notified Dawson that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction u nless, by August 5, 2013 , he filed a response showing that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a). Dawson has not filed an adequate response

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

appeal, filed on March 16, 2013, was untimely. Dawson, however, certified i n the certificate of service accompanying his notice of appeal, which wa s not signed, that the notice was served on Shannon Lee Dawson, via facsimi le, on March 15, 2013

. Nevertheless, nothing in the record demonstrates that the notice was either filed on March 15, 2013 or filed in a manner that made the filing date effective as of March 15, 2013. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.2(b), 26.1, 26.3

. Further, ev en if Dawson’s notice of appeal had been filed within the time period for an implied motion for extension, he was still required to offer a reasonable explanation of the need for an extension. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), (b)(2)(A), 26.3(b); Jones v . City of Houston , 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998). O n July 24, 2013 we notified Dawson that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by August 5, 2013, he filed a response providing a reasonable explanation for untimely filing the notice of appeal. Dawson has not responded to this notice, nor has he offered any explanation of the need for an extension.