NO. 12-07-00419-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ALFREDO MILTON

WATHEN RUIZ, ET AL.,    §          APPEAL FROM THE 145TH

APPELLANTS

V.        §          JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

STEWART MINERAL

CORPORATION, ET AL.,   §          NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a).  The trial court’s judgment was signed on August 3, 2007.  Under rule of appellate procedure 26.1(a), unless Appellants timely filed a motion for new trial or other postjudgment motion that extended the appellate deadlines, their notice of appeal was due to have been filed “within 30 days after the judgment [was] signed,” i.e., September 3, 2007.

            Appellants filed a motion for new trial on August 30, 2007.  See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a) (motion for new trial to be filed within thirty days after judgment signed).  Thus, Appellants’ time for filing their notice of appeal was extended to November 1, 2007.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a) (timely filed motion for new trial extends time for filing notice of appeal to ninety days after judgment signed).  On November 27, 2007, Appellants filed a motion in this court requesting until November 14, 2007 to file their notice of appeal.  In their motion, Appellants allege that they deposited their notice of appeal, properly addressed to the Nacogdoches County District Clerk, in care of the United States Postal Service on October 17, 2007.  Appellants later learned that the district clerk was unable to locate their notice of appeal and forwarded a copy of the notice to the district clerk.  That notice was filed on November 14, 2007, which was thirteen days after their notice of appeal was due.             An appellate court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice, the party files in the appellate court a motion complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b).  In the instant case, Appellants filed their motion for extension of time on November 27, 2007.  Under Rule 10.5(b), the motion must have been filed not later than November 16, 2007.  Because it was not, the motion is untimely.

            Appellants’ motion for extension of time to file their notice of appeal is overruled.  Because this court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as provided by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). 

Opinion delivered December 12, 2007.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)