## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Tex as

at For t Worth

_____ ____ __________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00145

- CV

__________

_ _ _______________

On Appeal from the 67th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 067

- 322692

- 21
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth 

### A URTHOR 

### J. M ANNING 

### , J R



### . , Appellant

V



### . F UNIMATION 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appella nt A u rthur J. Man ning, Jr. attempt s to appeal a dismissal order , b ut he
filed his notice of appeal several months too late

.

“ [T]he time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and absent a timely [ ] filed notice of appeal or timely [ ] filed motio n fo r extension, we must dismiss the appeal.” Mitchell v. Estrada , No. 0 2

- 22

- 00005

- CV, 2022 WL 1183342, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Apr. 21, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) ( quoting In re Guar d ianship of Fulbright , No. 02

- 16

- 00230

- CV , 2016 WL 43 95804, at *1 (Tex . App.

— Fort Worth Aug. 18, 2016, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) ) ; see Te x. R. A pp. P. 25.1 (b)

. Generally, a notice of appeal must be f i led within 30 days after the a ppealable judgment or order is sig ned

. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1

. O r , if the appel l ant files a motion
for new trial or other qualifying post judgment mo tion to e xtend the deadline , the notice of appea l must be filed within 90 days after the appealable judgment or order is signed

. 1 Tex. R. App

. P. 26.1 ( a )

. O n July 28, 2021 , t he trial court signed an appealable ord er dismissing Manning ’ s case . Manning ’ s notice of appeal was due within 30 days ( by August 27,
2021 ) , and if he filed a motion for new tri al, his n ot ice was due wit hin 90 days ( by

1 An appellan t can also request a 15

- day extension if the request is filed within 1 5 day s after the deadline for the notice of app eal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26. 3

. But Manning did not request an extension , no r did he file his noti ce of appeal withi n 15 days aft er its de adline

. S ee Verb urgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Te x. 1997)

.3

October 26, 2021 )

. But Manning did not file his notice of appeal until April 2 6 , 2022

— more than 270 days after the judgment was signed

. Consequently, w e notified the parties that the notice of appeal a ppear ed
untim ely, and we e x press ed our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.
W e warned that we would dismiss the appeal for w ant of ju risdiction unless Manning ( or any other party

) file d a r es ponse showing grounds for con tinu i ng th e ap peal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42 .3 (a) , 44. 3

. Manning sent a response 2 indicating that he had filed a motion for new trial

. 3
He subsequen tly provided an e F ile Texas receipt for a motion for new trial that he had
fil ed on June 30, 202 1 , nearly a month before the dismissal order

. E ven if we were to cons true this premature motion as t imely, though, see Tex. R. App. P. 27.2, it would n ot show grounds for continuing the appeal . A timely

2 B ef ore Manning filed his response, he filed a “ petition for review ” complaining of the dismissal

. The “ petition for review ” did not state any legal basis for continuing the appe al.

3 In addit ion to the e F ile Texas receipt for hi s m otion for new trial, Mannin g provided e F ileTexas receipts show ing (1) that he attempted to file another motion for new trial on S e ptember 20, 2021 but it was returned to him ; and ( 2 ) that he file d an uni den tified docu ment later tha t same day, on September 20, 2021

. Nei ther of these receipts provide a legal basis for continuing the appeal

. Indeed, e ven if the motion for new trial that Manning attempted to file on Septe mber 20 had been accepted , the moti on would have b een untim ely and therefore a nullity , i neffective to extend the ap pellate deadlines. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b; Scott v. Wichita Cnty. , No. 2

- 07

- 154

- CV, 2007 WL 1952380, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth July 5, 2007, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (holding “ u ntimely motion for new trial did not ex tend [the appe llant ’s] dead line for filing his notice of appeal ”)

.4

motion for n ew trial woul d have ex tended Manning ’ s deadline only until October 26,
20 2 1, and his April 2 6 , 2022 notice would still have been more than 180 days too late.
See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (a)

. Manning has thus fai led to invoke this court ’ s jurisdiction ; he f a iled to f ile a timely not

ice of appeal , and he failed to file a response show ing grounds fo r continui ng the appeal. See In r e Guardianship of White , No. 02

- 21

- 00300

- CV, 2022 WL 488936, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 17, 2022, no pet. ) (mem. op.) (holdin g similar ly a fter appe llants filed untimely notice of appeal and failed to show grounds
for continuing the appeal )

. A cc ordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3( a ) , 43.2(f).

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudde rth Chief Justice

De li vered: May 19, 2022