                            NUMBER 13-14-00624-CV

                          COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                   CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________

ABELINO GARZA JR.,                                                      Appellant,

                                         v.

JOSE G. LOPEZ,                                      Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 139th District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
     Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
                  Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, Abelino Garza Jr., attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment

entered by the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-0029-

13-C. Judgment in this cause was signed on July 14, 2014. A motion for new trial was

filed on August 13, 2014.    Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1,
appellant’s notice of appeal was due on October 13, 2014, but was not filed until October

24, 2014.

       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.—Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565,

567 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.).

       On October 27, 2014, 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 the 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
4th day of December, 2014.

                                             2
