Summary
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed an accelerated appeal from a juvenile court order waiving jurisdiction and transferring the appellant to criminal district court. Because the notice of appeal was filed within 15 days after the deadline, the court implied a motion for extension and ordered the appellant to file a proper extension motion supported by a reasonable explanation.
Holdings
- When a perfecting instrument is filed within fifteen days after its due date, a motion for extension of time is necessarily implied, even in an accelerated appeal.
- An appellant whose late notice of appeal results in an implied extension motion must still provide a reasonable explanation supporting the late filing.
Questions Presented
- Whether a notice of appeal filed within fifteen days after the deadline permits an implied motion for extension under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.
- Whether an appellant must provide a reasonable explanation supporting the late filing even when an extension motion is implied.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (3)
- Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997)(followed)
- Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884, 885 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam)(applied)
- Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…