Court Opinion

ID: 4708263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-02 07:20:27.340108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:49.408086
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-21-00140-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

ANDREW T. REED,                                                            Appellant,

                                              v.

PATTY CARRION, INDIVIDUALLY,
EDDY MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY,
DR. RAUL MARQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY
AND D/B/A ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY
CENTER SPORTS MEDICINE,                            Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

            On appeal from County Court at Law No. 7
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

   Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

      This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motion for extension of appellate

deadline. On May 4, 2021, appellant filed a notice attempting to appeal the trial court’s
Order Granting Dismissal and Attorney Fees, signed on January 20, 2021. We now

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

         An appeal taken from a dismissal in such a case shall be accelerated. See TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 2008). To perfect an accelerated

appeal, the party is required to file a notice of appeal “within 20 days after the judgment

or order is signed.” Id. at R. 26.1(b). The filing of a motion for new trial, request for

findings of fact and conclusions of law, or any other post-judgment motion, except for a

motion for extension of time filed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, “will not

extend the time to perfect an accelerated appeal.” Id. at R. 26.3, 28.1(b).

         We are to construe the rules of appellate procedure reasonably and liberally so

that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to

effectuate the purpose of a rule. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex.

1997). Nevertheless, we are prohibited from enlarging the scope of our jurisdiction by

enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case in a manner not provided for by

rule. See Tex. R. App. P. 2; In re T.W., 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2002, no

pet.).

         Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely; therefore, we lack jurisdiction

over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and appellant’s motion for extension

of appellate deadline for want of jurisdiction.

                                                              CLARISSA SILVA
                                                              Justice

Delivered and filed on the
29th day of July, 2021.

                                                2