












 
 
 
 
 
 
                                       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. 
 
 
 
 
 

