l)ISMISS: Opinion issued December 10, 2012

in The 

### Qtiitrt uf _qq.irati .fift1! 

### Jitrirt uf Lrxa at Jattas No. 05-11-01280-CV
IN RE: DAVID SCOT LYND
On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court 1)allas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. I)C-10-06759 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Beibre Justices Moseley, Francis. and Lang Opinion By Justice Lang By letter dated October 24, 2012, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal. Specifically, it appears the notice of appeal is untimely. We instructed appellant to file a jurisdictional briefwithin ten days explaining how this Court hasjurisdiction and gave appellee an opportunity to file a responsive brief On November 13. 2012. appellant filed a motion for an extension of time and dismissal ofjurisdictional brief request. We treat appellant’s motion as a jurisdictional brief. A notice of appeal is due thirty days after the date thejudgment is signed. TEx, R. App. P. 26. 1. Ifa party timely files a post-judgment motion extending the appellate timetable, the notice of appeal is due ninety days after the date the judgment is signed. See TEx. R. APr. P.26.1(a). An extension oftime may be granted if an appellant files a notice ofappeal within fifteen days ofthedeadline and files a motion complying with rule ofappellate procedure 10.5(b). See TEx. R. APP. P.26.3. Without a timely notice ofappeal, this Court lacksjurisdiction. See

### Thx. R. APE. P.25.1. In hisjurisdictional brief, appellant states: Appellant filedthe original notice on 6-30-2011 with therequestforfindings offacts and conclusions oflaw. That notice had the original 6-8-2010 indigent affidavit attached. The subsequent notices were due to the clerk feeling that [the] affidavit was too old and must be redone. Therecordbeforethis Courtdoes not supportappellant’s claim. The request forfindings offact and conclusions oflawdoes notinclude anotice ofappeal. Appellantalso contends thetime limitto file
a notice of appeal runs from the date of the judgment or an order on a motion for new trial. Appellant’s assertion is incorrect Appellate timetables begin running only from the date the 

### judgmentis signed. See Tex. R. App. P.26.1. Appellant contends he made a good faith effort to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by attempting to file the original affidavit ofindigence. The trial court clerk refbsed to file it. He contends we should consider his good faith attempt as a request for an extension oftime. As support, appellant cites to Jones v. Cliv ofHouston. 976 S.W.2d 676 (Tex. 1998). In Jone.c, the appellant did not file the perfecting instrument, an affidavit in lieu ofbond, before the deadline or a motion for extension within the fifteen-day grace period. The appellant did, however, file his affidavitin lieu of bondwithin the fifteen-daygraceperiod. Id. at 677. The supreme courtheldthat the filing ofthe affidavit within the grace period implied a motion for extension. Id. The holding inJones is not applicable to this case. Appellant did not file the perfecting instrument, a notice of appeal, within eitherninetydays ofthe date ofthejudgment orwithin the fifteen-day grace period. The trial court signed thejudgment on May 24, 2011. Appellant filed a timely motion to reconsider. Accordingly, thenotice ofappealwas dueonAugust22,2011, ninetydays fromthedate

—2—the judement was sincd. Sec TEN. R. Ai’r. P. 26. 1(a). Appellant bled a notice of appeal on September 12, 2011. In his notice ofappeal, appellant states that he is appealing the trial court’s judgment dated June 14. 2011 The irial court signed an order on June 14, 20!! denying appellant’s motion to reconsider. The judgment was signed on May 24, 2011 and that is the date from which the appellate timetable runs. Appellant’s notice of appeal was tiled 21 days past the deadline. Because appellant did not file a timely notice ofappeal. this Court lacksjurisdiction. Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal TEN. R. APP. P. 42.3(a.

JGL S. LNG’

11 1280F,P05

—3—

### Qtutrt 

### uf Appizt1i Fifth iatrirt nf xas at 1a11a JUDGMENT IN RE: DAViD SCoT LYND No. 05-1 1-01280-CV Appeal from the I 62nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. DC- 10- 06750). Opinion (Iclivered by Justice Lang, Justices Moseley and Francis, participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, the appeal is I)ISMISSEI). It is ORDERED that appellee, Craig Watkins, recoverhis costs ofthe appeal from appellant, David Scot Lynd.
Judgment entered December 10, 2012.

S. LANG