Court Opinion

ID: 2922079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:52:06.722337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:12.135355
License: Public Domain

NUMBER
13-05-499-CV
 
                         COURT
OF APPEALS
 
               THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                  CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG
_________________________________________________________
 
ONE HUNDRED TWENTY NINE THOUSAND 
EIGHT HUNDRED FIVE DOLLARS IN U.S. 
CURRENCY ($129,805.00),                                       Appellant,
 
                                           v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                              Appellee.
_________________________________________________________
 
                  On
appeal from the 105th District Court 
                            of
Kleberg County, Texas
_________________________________________________________
 
                     MEMORANDUM
OPINION
 
             Before
Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Rodriguez
                       Memorandum
Opinion Per Curiam
 

Appellant, EDGAR ORTIZ-AVILA A/K/A EDGAR ISRAEL ORTIZ,
attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 105th
District Court of Kleberg County, Texas, in cause number 04-606-D.  Judgment in this
cause was signed on March 4, 2005.  A timely motion for new trial and motion to
set aside default judgment were filed on March 28, 2005.  Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was
due on June 2, 2005, but was not filed until June
24, 2005.  
Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to
correct the defect, if it could be done. 
Appellant was 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.  Appellant=s response to this Court=s notice was received
on September 14, 2005.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellant=s failure to timely
perfect his appeal, and appellant=s response to this
Court=s notice, is of the
opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION.
PER CURIAM
 
 
Memorandum Opinion
delivered and 
filed this the 27th day of October, 2005.