                            NUMBER 13-10-00288-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________

           IN THE INTEREST OF R.F.M., A MINOR CHILD
____________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 343rd District Court
                 of San Patricio County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Vela
                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, Phillip Morales, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered

by the 343rd District Court of San Patricio County, Texas, in cause number

00-5309FL-LC. Judgment in this cause was signed on April 7, 2010. Pursuant to

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on May 7,

2010, but was not filed until May 10, 2010.

      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, 619 (1997) (construing the

predecessor to Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for

the late filing: it is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins,

140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex. App.BAmarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567

(Tex. App.BWaco 2002, no pet.).

       On May 17, 2010, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that

steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that,

if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court=s

letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from

appellant providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.

          The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,

appellant=s failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant=s failure to respond to this

Court=s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).



                                                  PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 24th
day of June, 2010.




                                             2
