### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00699-CV
Don Stel zer , Appellant v. Telse rve Com munication, Inc.; Jerry D. Gibson; and Jim Will iams, Jr., Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NO. C96- 0867A, HONORABLE JACK H. R OBISON, JUD GE PR

ESIDING
Because appel

l ant Don St el zer fai

led t o t imely file a p er fec t ing inst rume nt , we will di sm i ss th e app eal f or wan t of j uri sdi

cti on on our

own m otion . SeeTex . R. A

pp. P. 26 .1, 42.3( a). The tri al cou rt si gned an orde r dism i ss i ng thi s c au se f or wa nt of pros ecution on August 29, 200 1. Co nseq uent ly, app ellant ’s n oti ce of appe al wa s d ue Septem b er 28 , 20 01 , th

i rty da ys aft er t he o rd er was signed , a bsent a t imely f i l ed m otion ex tend i ng th e app el l ate dea dli ne s. See Tex . R. A pp. P. 26 .1(a). On Dec ember 1 4, 200 1, t he Cle r k o f t his C o ur t filed ap pe llant ’s mo t io n t o ex t en d t ime to f i l e n oti ce of appe al . In

h i s m oti on , a pp el l an t i n di ca tes th at a mot ion t o r einst at e o r in t he alte rna t ive for new tria

l wa s fi le d with the tri al

court . Thus, accordin

g to appella

nt, a notice of appeal was du e N ov em

b er 27 , 20 01 , n

i n ety day s af ter the tri al courtsi gne d i ts order of

di sm i ssa l , see Te x. R. Ap p. P. 26 . 1( a) ( 3) , an d a mo t io n t o ex t en d t ime t o file a notice of appe al

was due Decem

ber 12, 2001, f i f teen day s later. SeeTe x . R . A

pp . P. 26 .3 ( appe l l ate

cou rt m ay ex ten d ti me to file noti

ceof2

appeal i f moti on requestin g extensi on of tim e i s f il ed wi thin fi fteen da ys after deadl

in e for f il in g notice of a ppea l ). On Ja nua ry 7 , 2 00 2, t he C ler k o f t his C o ur t filed a pp ellee s’ v er ifi ed res pon se to appellant’s moti on

to ex ten d ti me to f i l e n oti ce of appe al . In

th ei r response, appelle es al le ge that al though appe l l an

t f i l ed a m oti on to re i n sta te or in the al

tern ati ve f or n ew tri al wi th th e tri al cou rt on Septembe r28, 200 1, t hirt y days aft er t he t rial co ur t signed t he di sm i ssa lord er, the motion was unve rif ie d. See Tex. R. Civ. P . 16 5a( 3); McConnell v. May , 800 S .W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990) (motion to reinstate mustbe veri f i ed); Butts v. Capitol City Nursing Home, Inc. , 705 S.W.2d 696, 697 (Te x. 198 6) (

un ve ri f i ed moti on does not ex te nd t im

e for per fecting ap peal); see also City of McAllen v. Ramirez , 875 S.W.2d 702, 704-05 (Tex. App.—Corpus Chri sti 1994, orig. proceedin g) (ho ldingthat unveri fi

ed m ot ion f or new trial

is not viable

substi tut e for veri

fi ed moti on to rei nstate). On Oct obe r 1 2, for t y-fou r d ays aft er t he trial co urt signe d its di sm

is sal order, appell ant fi

le d an am ended motion to reinstate o r in

the al ternative f

or new t r ial, wh ich wa s ve r ified . Ho we ve r , t his am ended motion was

fil ed a fte r t he t rial co ur t had lo st its p lenary jur isdict ion t o c ons ider t he mot ion. Ow en v. Hodge , 8 74 S .W. 2d 3 01, 303 (T ex. App. —Ho ust on [1s t Dist. ] 1 99 4, n o wr i t) (s upp l em en tation of unv erif ie d motion to rein state after thirty-day deadlin e has lapse d will not ext end trial court ’s j urisdi

ction). Appel

le es attac hed co pies to their verified resp onse o f the tr ial cou rt ’s dis mi ssal orde r an d the tw o moti ons

to r ein st ate. To d ate, appell ant has not r efuted appell ees’ assertions, chal

le nged the authen

tici ty of the copi es of the do cu men ts p rovi de d by

ap pe l l ee s, or provided this Court with a

ny contro vertin

g evi dence de mon strati

n g th at a v eri f i ed moti on to re i n sta te was t imely file d w it h t he t r ial c o ur t , t hu s e xt en din g t he de ad line t o file a notice o f ap pe al.3

Co nsider ingthe assertions in appelle es’ verif

ie d response and the

attached ex

hi bi ts, thi s Court concl udes th at a

pp el l an t f ai l ed to ti mel y f i l e w i th th e tr i al cou rt th e p rop er i n str um en t n ec es sa ry to ext end t he de adline fo r filing a n oti ceof appe al . SeeTex. Gov’t Code Ann . § 22.220(c) (West 1988) (courtmay

as certa i n m atte rs of f ac t n ec es sa

ry to pr ope r e x erci se of i ts jurisdictio n); Flores v. Citizens State Bank of Roma 954 S. W. 2d 78 , 79 ( T ex . Ap p. —S an Ant o nio 1997, no writ) (rely in g on veri fi ed
m otion to dis m i ss a l ong w i th attach ed ce rtif i ed copi es to as certai

n j uri sdi cti on ove r appe al ). Even as su m i ng tha t a veri f i ed moti on wa s t im ely fi

led wit h t he t rial co ur t and t he dea dline to fi

le a notice of a

ppeal was Novem

ber 27 , 20 01 , ap pe llant ha s fa iled t o de mo nst r at e t o t his Courtt hat he has co mplied wit h t his dea dline. R ule 26 .3 of t he rules of appel la te pro cedure allows an appella nt to request an extens ion of tim e to fil e a notice of

ap pea l if t he mo t io n is file d w it hin fi fteen day s af ter th e deadl

i n e f or f i l i n g th e n oti ce of appe al . Tex . R . A

pp . P. 26 .3. In

ord er to co mply with this rule, app ell

ant’s motion for extension of tim e must have been

fi le d by Decem ber 12, 2001. Attached t o appellan t’s motion to extend time is a copy of a postm

arked en ve l ope. It appe ars f rom t he co py t ha t t he en ve lo pe wa s s t amp ed by a postage meter on D ecem

ber 12. To t he left of t he st amp i s a postm ar k, w h i ch re f l ec ts that t he enve lop e wa s mailed o n Dec ember 1 3, 200 1. Acco rd ing to thi s of f i ci al pos tmark , ap

pe l l an t mai l ed hi s m oti on t o ex t en d t ime to fi

le notice of appe al

one day after the D ecem

ber 12 de adl

i ne . See Albaug

h v. State Bank of La Ver

nia , 586 S.W.2d 137, 137-38 (T ex. App. —S an Ant onio 197 9, no w rit ) ( hold ing t hat “mete re d st amp mer ely show s t he da te whi ch appeared o n t he met er at t he t ime t he env elope was stamped, rat her than the actu al date”). T hus, even if appella nt had properly

extended the appel

la te timetab le , he fai

le d to compl

y w ith the e xtended deadlin e.4 The tim e peri od f or fi l i ng a perf ecti ng i nstrumen t is j uri sd i cti on al . Velasquez v. Harrison , 934 S.W .2d 767 , 770 (Tex. A pp.—H ouston [1s

t Di st.] 1996 , no wri

t). When an a ppe llant fails t o file t imely

a pe rfec t ing instr ument or pr op er ly seek an e xt ensio n of t ime to fil e a p er fect ing i ns trumen t, the ap pel l ate court m

ust di sm i ss th e ca use f or la ck of j uri sdi cti on. Id. Because appell

ant’s notice of appeal was not t im ely fi led, this Court is w i thou t j urisd i cti on ov er th e a pp ea l . A cc ordi

n gl y , w e d i sm i ss th i s a pp ea l , a s w el l as appe l l an t’s m oti on to ex ten d ti me to f i l e n oti ceof app eal, for want of j uri sdi cti on on our

own m otion . SeeTex. R. App. P. 42.3(a ).

Bea An n Sm ith, Justice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussie, Justices

B. A. Sm ith an d Puryear Di sm i ss ed f or W an t of Ju ri sd i cti on File : January

25, 2002 Do No t Publis

h