






NUMBER 13-09-00003-CV


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

______________________________________________________________
 
CLYDE NUBINE, 	Appellant,

v.


KAREN M. STROLENY, ET AL.,	Appellees. 
 
_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Chief Justice Valdez, and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

	Appellant, Clyde Nubine, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered
by the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas, in cause number B-08-1345-CV-B. 
Judgment in this cause was signed on November 10, 2008.  Pursuant to Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant's notice of appeal was due on December 10, 2008,
but was not filed until January 5, 2009.   
	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 January 6, 2009, 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.  Appellant filed a response, however, it does not establish
that the notice of appeal and a motion requesting an extension of time was filed within the
fifteen-day grace period. 
          The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, and
appellant's failure to timely perfect his appeal, 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


Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 26th day of February, 2009. 
