Court Opinion

ID: 9913081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 20:08:56.007174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:17.894403
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                     San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                        No. 04-23-00874-CV

                                        Willie BURLESON,
                                             Appellant

                                                  v.

                Lula SCHULER, Portia Vidrine, William C. Burleson, Shirley Miller,
                                          Appellees

                 From the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 20-1102-CV-A
                           Honorable William D. Old III, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 20, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

           The trial court signed a final judgment on August 22, 2023. The notice of appeal was due

on September 21, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1, 26.1. A motion for extension of time to file the

notice of appeal was due on October 6, 2023. See id. R. 26.3. Although appellant filed a notice

of appeal on September 27, 2023, within the fifteen-day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, he did

not file a motion for extension of time.

           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
                                                                                       04-23-00874-CV

period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner,

959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the appellant

must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See

id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C); see also Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884, 886–87 (Tex.

2003) (holding “a reasonable explanation” is any plausible statement of circumstances indicating

that failure to timely file was not deliberate or intentional but was the result of inadvertence,

mistake or mischance, and that “any conduct short of deliberate or intentional noncompliance

qualifies as inadvertence, mistake or mischance”) (citation omitted). This court ordered appellant

to show cause in writing by November 20, 2023, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction. We advised appellant that failure to respond timely would result in dismissal of

this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant has not responded to date.

       Accordingly, because appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation for failure to file

a timely notice of appeal, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3,

10.5(b)(1)(C), 42.3(b), (c); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 615.

                                                   PER CURIAM

                                                 -2-