Court Opinion

ID: 2930531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-15 00:24:07.614163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:34.905948
License: Public Domain

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 26, 2004

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 26,
2004.
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
 
NO. 14-03-01431-CV
____________
 
CAROLYN J.
WALLACE, Appellant
 
V.
 
UNIVERSITY OF
TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH AT GALVESTON, Appellee
 

 
On Appeal from the
56th District Court
Galveston
County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No.
03CV0069
 

 
M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N
This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed August 20,
2003.  Appellant filed a motion for new
trial on September 22, 2003.  Appellant=s notice of appeal was filed December
4, 2004.
When appellant has filed a timely motion for new trial,
motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of
fact and conclusion of law, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety
days after the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).

Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed timely. 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 period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion
for extension of time.  See Verburgt
v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 9 (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 Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C); Verburgt,
959 S.W.2d at 617-18.  Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed
within the fifteen-day period provided by rule 26.3
On January 13, 2004, notification was transmitted to all
parties of the Court=s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex.
R. App. P. 42.3(a).  Appellant=s response fails to demonstrate that
this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
 
PER CURIAM
 
Judgment rendered and Memorandum
Opinion filed February 26, 2004.
Panel consists of Justices Yates,
Anderson, and Hudson.