Court Opinion

ID: 9653180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:40:28.894693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:56.846131
License: Public Domain

WARD, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion holding that we are without jurisdiction to entertain the third motion to extend the time to file the statement of facts. To hold that the “last date for filing” referred to in Rule 21c(1) is the extended filing date previously set by the Court of Appeals is to read into the rule a meaning that is not there. The rule is referring to the last date for filing “as prescribed by the applicable rule or rules.” It says nothing about a previous court order. The rule should be changed before it is used to trap a reputable lawyer in his good faith effort to present his appeal. That reasonable approach was adopted by a unanimous Supreme Court in Crites v. Court of Civil Appeals, Second Supreme Judicial District, 516 S.W.2d 123 (Tex.1974). Granted, that was a pre-Rule 21c holding, but its spirit should still apply.
In this connection, both the majority and the San Antonio court reason that the second motion for extension of time which was filed in the Crites case was filed either within the fifteen-day Rule 21c period or the fifteen-day old Rule 386 period. Hardly; Rule 21c did not become effective until over a year after Crites was decided and no mention was made in Crites to such a limitation under old Rule 386.
The Appellant again presents a reasonable explanation for additional time to file his statement of facts and again it’s a court reporter’s fault. We should grant the motion and act against the court reporter.