Carole Ann Wallace v. Henderson County Appraisal District

NO. 12-23-00087-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CAROLE ANN WALLACE, § APPEAL FROM THE 3RD
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, § HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Carole Ann Wallace, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal from a judgment entered on
February 22, 2023. Under Rule 26.1, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after
the judgment is signed or, if the case is accelerated, within twenty days after the judgment or
order is signed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Unless the appeal is accelerated, the notice of appeal must
be filed within ninety days “after the judgment is signed” if any party timely files a motion for
new trial, motion to modify, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusions
of law when such could be properly considered by the appellate court. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)-
(b), 28.1(b). Wallace filed her notice of appeal on March 30. The case information sheet from
the Henderson County District Clerk’s Office reflects that Wallace did not file a motion for new
trial, other post-judgment motion, or request for findings and conclusions; thus, her notice of
appeal was due on or before March 24.
Rule 26.3 provides that a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal must be
filed within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.
Any motion for extension of time was due no later than April 10. Wallace did not file a motion
for extension.
On March 30, this Court notified Wallace that the information received in this appeal
does not show the jurisdiction of this Court, i.e., there is no timely notice of appeal. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 26.1, 37.1. Nevertheless, Wallace was further notified that, pursuant to Rule 26.3 and
Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997), we would imply a motion to extend time for
filing the notice of appeal. We informed Wallace that Rule 26.3 requires a motion complying
with Rule 10.5(b). See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b). Thus, we notified Wallace that the
appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless on or before April 10, she informed
this Court, in writing, of facts that reasonably explained the need for an extension of time to file
the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. This deadline expired without a motion in
accordance with Verburgt or other response from Wallace.
This Court is not authorized to alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Because Wallace did not respond to this Court’s Verburgt notice, we cannot
exercise jurisdiction over the appeal. See Lasater v. Thompson, No. 02-20-00290-CV, 2021 WL
386957, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 4, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (absent timely filed
notice of appeal or extension request, appellate court lacks jurisdiction). Accordingly, the appeal
is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.1
Opinion delivered April 20, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

1
We also note that Wallace’s notice of appeal fails to comply with appellate Rule 9.5 and Section
51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 (service); see also TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on each court reporter
responsible for preparing reporter’s record). Additionally, Wallace’s docketing statement is past due. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 32.1.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 20, 2023

NO. 12-23-00087-CV

CAROLE ANN WALLACE,
Appellant
V.
HENDERSON COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT,
Appellee

Appeal from the 3rd District Court
of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV21-0412-3)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same
being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision
be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.