Isaac G. Rodriguez Sr. D/B/A I & R Trucking and Rodriguez Trucking v. Denise Marez, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Juan Perez ( 2021 )

NUMBER 13-20-00323-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
ISAAC G. RODRIGUEZ SR.
D/B/A I & R TRUCKING AND
RODRIGUEZ TRUCKING, Appellants,
v.
DENISE MAREZ, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF
THE ESTATE OF JUAN PEREZ, Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 156th District Court
of San Patricio County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On July 31, 2020, appellants
filed a notice attempting to appeal a final judgment entered by the 156th Judicial District
of San Patricio County, Texas, in cause number S-17-5182CV-B. The final judgment was
signed on January 7, 2020, more than six months before the notice of appeal was filed.
We now dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides that an appeal is perfected when
notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for
new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial has
been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the judgment is
signed. Id. R. 26.1(a). A motion for new trial was filed in this matter; however, the notice
of appeal was filed more than six months after the judgment well beyond the ninety-day
limit.
On July 31, 2020, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants of this defect so that
steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were advised
that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court’s
letter, the appeal would be dismissed. On December 8, 2020, appellants filed an
amended notice of appeal. Appellants argue the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative the denial of appellants’
motion for new trial, and the related trial court activity extended the deadline for perfecting
the appeal.
A denial of a motion for new trial is not independently appealable and does not
start a new timetable for perfecting the appeal. State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Berdan, 335
S.W.3d 421, 428 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2011, pet. denied). As such,
2
appellants’ notice of appeal is untimely and the amended notice of appeal does not cure
the defect.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and
appellants’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, is of the opinion the appeal should be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
4th day of February, 2021.
3