## NO. 12

- 18

- 00247

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOHNNY M. STAFFORD,

APPELLANT

V.

BOWLES ENERGY, INC., ET AL,

APPELLEE S §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 4TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RUSK COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The trial court’s judgment or other

appealable order was signed on August 13, 2018. Under the rules of appellate procedure, the

notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

26.1. The record does not indicate that Appellant filed a motion for new trial, motion to modify,

motion to reinstate, o r request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

26.1( a ). Thus, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on or before September 12. Appellant filed

his notice of appeal on September 17, thus, it was untimely.

Rule 26.3 provides that a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal must be

filed within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3. On

September 17, this Court notified Appellant that the informati on received in this appeal does not

show the jurisdiction of this Court, i.e., there is no timely notice of appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

26.1, 37.1

. However, Appellant was further notified that, pursuant to Rule 26.3 and Verburgt v.

Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997), we would imply a motion to extend time for filing the notice

of appeal. We informed Appellant that Rule 26.3 requires a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b).

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b). Thus, we notified Appellant that the appeal w ould be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless on or before September 27, 2018, Appellant inform ed2

this Court, in writing, of facts that reasonably explain ed his need for an extension of time to file

the notice of appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3.

On September 24, Appellant filed a “motion for leave of the court to extend filing

deadlines,” which did not comply with the service requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.5 and gave no reasonable explanation supporting the need for an extension. See T EX

.

R. A PP

. P. 9.5; see also Hone v. Hanafin , 104 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2003) (“reasonable

explanation” constitutes any plausible statement of circumstances indicating failure to file within

applicable time period was not deliberate or intentional, but the result of inadvertence, mistake, or

mischance). Accordingly, b ecause this C ourt 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, the appeal is

dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

Opinion delivered October 10, 2018.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( PUBLISH )

1 We also note that o n September 1 7, 2018, the clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the filing fee in this appeal is due. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5. Appellant was informed that failure to remit the fil ing fee on or before September 2 7 would result in the Court’s taking appropriate action, including dismissal of the case without further

notice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). The record indicates that Appellant has a July 2007 affidavit of indigency and an April 2007 pauper’s oath on fi le, but no recent declaration as to indigency. Moreover, the date for remitting the filing fee has passed, and Appellant did not comply with the Court’s request or otherwise respond to the September 17

notice

.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 10 , 2018

NO. 12

- 18

- 00247

- CV

JOHNNY M. STAFFORD, Appellant

V. BOWLES ENERGY, INC., ET AL,

Appellee s

Appeal from the 4th District Court

of Rusk County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2007

- 150)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the

appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and D ECREED by this Court that this

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction ; and that this decision be

certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

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