$2,764.00 Current Money of the United States and Various Personal Property v. State ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                            COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 2-08-227-CV
    $2,764.00 CURRENT MONEY                                             APPELLANT
    OF THE UNITED STATES AND
    VARIOUS PERSONAL PROPERTY
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                    APPELLEE
    ------------
    FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
    ------------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
    ------------
    David Barela is attempting to appeal a post-answer default judgment of
    property forfeiture dated April 2, 2007. Barela did not file his notice of appeal
    until May 28, 2008, over a year after the date of the judgment.         Because
    appellant did not file any motions that would have extended the appellate
    1
    … See T EX. R. A PP. P. 47.4.
    deadlines, his notice of appeal was due May 2, 2007.2 See T EX. R. A PP. P.
    26.1(a).
    On July 1, 2008, we notified appellant of our concern that we might not
    have jurisdiction over the appeal and informed him that unless he or any party
    desiring to continue the appeal filed with this court a response on or before July
    11, 2008 showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of
    appeal, this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See T EX. R.
    A PP. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. The State filed a motion to dismiss on July 2, 2008.
    Appellant filed a response indicating that he received timely notice of the
    judgment but contending that because he was unaware of the appellate
    deadlines, the appeal should be continued.
    The times for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in this court, and
    absent a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we
    must dismiss the appeal. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 25.1(b), 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner,
    
    959 S.W.2d 615
    , 617 (Tex. 1997). Because appellant’s notice of appeal was
    2
    … Appellant’s notice of appeal is also untimely for purposes of a
    restricted appeal. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 26.1(c).
    2
    not timely filed, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX. R.
    A PP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
    PER CURIAM
    PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.
    DELIVERED: August 21, 2008
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-08-00227-CV

Filed Date: 8/21/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/4/2015