Appellees ’ Motion to Dismiss Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 16 , 2023
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 00184

- CV

JAMES SHAFFER , Appellant
V. LYONDELL CHEMICAL CO., LYONDELLBASELL ACETYLS, LLC, AND EQUISTAR CHEMICALS, L .P., Appellee s
On Appeal from the 190 th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022

- 09420

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed November 29, 202 2

. Appellant , James Shaffer, filed a timely motion for ne w trial on Dec ember 9, 2023

. The trial court den ied S ha ffer’ s motion for new trial on J anuary 25, 20 23, and Sha ffer filed his notice of appeal on March 15, 2023

. Contending that appellant ’ s noti ce of appeal was untimely, a pp ellees have filed in our cour t a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction

.2 When an appellant has filed a timely post

- judgment motion of a type identified in rule 26.1(a) , a notice of ap peal must be filed within 90 days after the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Thus , Sha ffer ’ s notice of appeal was due February 27, 2023. Shaffer ’ s notice of appeal was not filed timely.
The app ellate rules allow a n appellate court to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Te x. R. App. P. 26.3. An appellate court is authorized to do so if

, within fifteen days after the original deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the appellant (1) file s in the trial court a notice of a ppeal and (2) file s in the app ellate court a motion comp lying with rule 10.5(b). Id

. Fifteen days after February 27, 2023 was Tue sday M arch 14, 2023. Shaffer filed a notice of appeal in the trial court on March 15, 2023; and he f iled a motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal in our court on Marc h 20, 2023. Shaffer did not comp ly with ei ther prerequisite in rule 26.3. Therefore, we may not extend time for Shaffer t o file his untimely no tice of appeal.
A motion to extend time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the ti me allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within the fifteen day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion to extend time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617

– 18 (1997) (construing th e predecessor to Rule 26). This prin ciple is not implicated here, how ever, because S haffer ’ s notice of appeal was filed one day after the fifteen

- day grace p eriod expired.

. In his motion to extend ti me to file a notice of appeal , Shaffer ar gu es that he filed the notice of appeal late due to confusion

. As suming as much, we are nonethel ess un authori zed by the rules of procedure to grant relief under the

c ircumstances presented

. In particular, Shaffer argues that he did not re ceiv e notice of the No vember 29, 2022 judgment , and he will be deni ed funda mental due3 process un less we extend the time for him to file his no tice of appeal

. We disagree. If Shaffer did not receive timely notice of the ju dgment from the district clerk, the rules of procedure provide a rem edy. Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a(4). Shaffer has not d emon strated that he has complied with this rule nor has he filed a signed order with our court esta blishing tha t the appellate deadlines have been restarted under this rul e.
A ppellant also cites two parental

- termination appeals in which the Dallas and Austin C o urt s of Appeals allowed for late n otices o f appeal. See A.G. v Tex. Dept. of F a m. & Protective Servs. , No. 03

- 22

- 0050 2

- CV, 20 22 WL 10714200 (Tex. App.

— Austin O ct. 19, 2022 , no pet. ) (allowing for late notice of appeal wher e counsel was not appointed until “ well beyond ” the deadline for filing a

no tice of appeal) ; I n re D .P.G. , No. 05

- 20

- 00652

- CV, 2021 WL 2472717 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Jun e 17, 2021, no pet.) (allowing for late notice of appeal where

co unsel did not receive notic e of appoi ntment until after the deadline for filing a
not ice of appeal ). Th ese cases are distingui shable and thus inapp licable here because both cases involved the attempted appeal of judgments terminating parental right s and counsel either was not appointed or did not have notice of appoint ment until the appellat e deadline had expired

. W e decline to extend those

cou rt ’ s h oldings to the in stant appeal

. An appellant ’ s failure to timely file a notice of appeal depr ives this court of jurisdic tion. Rid ge v. Ridge , 65 8 S.W.3d 427, 431 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.). We are wit hout jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal . We deny appellant ’ s motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal and grant appell ee s ’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly , the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM4 Panel consists of J ustices Jewell, Hassan, and Wilson.