NO. 07-05-0020-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D MARCH 16, 2005

______________________________ IN THE MA

TTER OF T HE MARRI AGE OF DONNA LYNN CRAWFORD AND MICHAE L SCOTT CRAWFORD

________________________________ FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTE R COUNTY; NO. 69,271-D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Order of Dismissal

________________________________ Before QUINN, REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. Michael Scott Crawford appeals from the trial co urt judgme nt granti ng a divorce. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The reco rd before us reveals that the final divorce decree was si gned on November 2, 2004. Pursuant to the Texas Rules of App ellate Procedure, appella nt was re quired to file his motion for new trial or notice of appeal with the clerk of the trial court no later than 30 days after the signing of the final decree , or by December 2, 2004. A motion for new trial and the n otice of a ppeal we re filed on Janua ry 19, 200 5. Becau se the de adline to perfectan appeal was December 2, 2004, the notice of appeal appeared u ntimely. T E X
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1 (stating that one must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the date the2

final order is signed, unless that deadline has been e xtended by motion or rule of procedure ). Furtherm o re, no motion (timely or otherwise) to extend the December 2nd deadlin e was received by this cou rt. By lette r dated March 3, 2005, we directed appellant to ex plain why the notice o f appeal was late or why he believed it to be timely. The explanation was d ue byMarch 14, 2005. He was also tol d th at the failure to comply with this directive would result i n the dismissa l of the a ppeal. T o date, n o respons e has bee n receive d. A timely n otice of appeal i s essenti al to invoke our a ppellate jurisdic tion. In re A.L.B. , 56 S.W.3d 651, 652 (Tex. Ap p.--Waco 2 003, no p et.). If the notice is untimely, then the court of

appeals can take no action other than to di smiss the proce eding. Id. Howeve r, the aforemen tioned d eadlinemay be ex tended i f, within 15 days aft er it expires, a notice of appeal is tende red to the court clerk along with a motion requesting a n extension. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3. Additionally, the motion must contain, among other things, a recitation of the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extensio n. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.5(b)(1 )(C). And, while we are to imply that a motion to e xtend has been filed when a litigantmerely tenders a notice of appeal within the15-day ti me period , Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 61 5, 617 (T ex. 1997 ), appell ants muststill reasonably justify their need for an extension. Kidd v. Paxton , 1 S.W.3d 309, 310 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1999, writ den ied). It is not en ough to s imply fil e a notice of appe al. However, having failed to timely file a motion for new trial or ask for an extension of time in wh ich to file his notice of appeal, the 90-day rule according to Texas Rule of Appella te Procedure 26.1(a)(1) does not apply in this case. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Since the notice of appe al was untimely filed and appellant3

did not explain or

justify the delay as per our directive, we conclude that he failed to timely perfecthis appeal. Bixby v. Bice, 992 S.W.2 d 615, 61 6 (Tex. A pp.--Waco1999, no pet.) ; Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assoc ., 974 S.W .2d 805 ( Tex. App .--Housto n [14th Dist.] 19 98, no wr it) (dismi ssing be cause no explan ation wa s offered)

. Accordin gly, we d ismiss th e appeal for want of jurisdi ction.

Brian Quinn Justice