NUMBER 13-12-00218-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ERNESTINA ESPINOZA, APPELLANT,

v.

HECTOR DE LA GARZA, APPELLEE.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Ernestina Espinoza, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment 

entered by the County Court at Law No. 1 of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 

2008-CCL-0862-A. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
2

Summary Judgment in this cause was signed on December 14, 2011. A motion 

for new trial was filed on January 13, 2012, and was denied by the trial court on March 6, 

2012. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on April 2, 2012, stating she was appealing from 

an order dated March 6, 2012. On April 10, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified 

appellant that it appeared that the order was not appealable. In response, appellant filed 

an amended notice of appeal on April 17, 2012, citing the order from which she was 

appealing was dated December 14, 2011. 

On May 7, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the 

appeal was not timely perfected. Appellant was advised that the appeal would be 

dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the 

Court=s directive. On May 18, 2012, appellant filed an unopposed “Response to Court 

Communication and Alternatively, Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for 

Extension to File Notice of Appeal.” Appellant requests that this court consider her 

appeal timely filed from the March 6, 2012, order or, alternatively, grant an extension to 

file the notice of appeal.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides that an appeal is perfected when 

notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for 

new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial or 

motion to reinstate has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after 

the judgment is signed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in 

good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the 

fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. 
3

See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the 

predecessor to Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for 

the late filing: it is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins, 

140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex. App.BAmarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 

(Tex. App.BWaco 2002, no pet.).

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 establishes the deadline for filing a notice 

of appeal based on the date that the judgment was signed and not from the date a motion 

for new trial is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Pursuant to Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on March 14, 2012. 

Although appellant has responded with an explanation regarding her late filing of the 

notice of appeal, appellant’s notice of appeal was filed beyond the fifteen-day grace 

period provided by rule 26.3. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and 

appellant=s failure to timely perfect her appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file notice of 

appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

28th day of June, 2012.