Court Opinion

ID: 9661409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:38:31.287029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:28.292648
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
concurring.
Very few documents have been filed or received at this point in this appeal. From what we have, I have been able to piece together the following time-line:
Date Description
10/29/04 Docket entry of hearing
11/02/04 Motion for New Trial
11/02/04 Motion to Reinstate
11/08/04 Notice of Appeal
11/09/04 Judgment signed
12/23/04 Motion Extension of Time to File Brief
(12/17/04) (mailed above motion)
02/07/04 Appellant’s Brief filed
02/07/04 Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
02/07/04 Declaration of Inability to Pay Cost
The motion for new trial and the notice of appeal both appear to be prematurely filed as they were filed prior to the signing of the judgment. Tex.R.App. P. 12.1 and 12.2. But there can be no question the notice of appeal was timely for the purpose of invoking our jurisdiction. Tex.R.App. P. 27.1.
But the Court’s holding oveirules the procedure we followed in In the Interest of K.K., L.M., M.M., and T.K., 10-04-00303-CV (letter order) that allowed a late filed indigence affidavit after the receipt of a reasonable explanation and reset the timetable to contest that affidavit. I am very reluctant to overrule a procedure so recently established. But I will join the decision, making it a unanimous holding that if the indigence affidavit is not timely filed, and no extension to consider the late filed indigence affidavit is timely filed, the case must be dismissed if the filing fee remains unpaid.
With these remarks, I join the Court’s opinion and judgment.