Court Opinion

ID: 2927490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 22:54:50.105124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:48.590241
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-08-00516-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

MARCELINO PERALES AND
MARIA DE JESUS PERALES,                                                  Appellants,

                                          v.

JOSE GUTIERREZ, ET AL.,                                                  Appellees.

_____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 398th District Court
                    of Hidalgo County, Texas.
______________________________________________________________

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

                   Before Justices Yanez, Garza, and Vela
                     Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellants, Marcelino Perales and Maria de Jesus Perales, attempted to perfect an

appeal from a judgment entered by the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in

cause number C-765-04-I. Judgment in this cause was signed on May 6, 2008. A motion
for new trial was filed on June 4, 2008. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

26.1, appellants’ notice of appeal was due on August 4, 2008, but was not filed until August

26, 2008.

       On September 3, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants of this defect so

that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were advised

that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s

letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from

appellants providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.

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

failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this Court’s

notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX .

R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).

                                                  PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 15th day of January, 2009.

                                              2