Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2007

Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Eight Dollars ($42,508.00) in US Currency and One (1) 1997 Ford Econoline Van, Vin 1fdee14l1vhb91899 v. State

Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Eight Dollars ($42,508.00) in US Currency and One (1) 1997 Ford Econoline Van, Vin 1fdee14l1vhb91899 v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided August 23, 2007

Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Eight Dollars ($42,508.00) in US Currency and One (1) 1997 Ford Econoline Van, Vin 1fdee14l1vhb91899 v. State

Opinion









NUMBER 13-07-350-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_______________________________________________________



FORTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EIGHT

DOLLARS ($42,508.00) IN U.S. CURRENCY AND

ONE (1) 1997 FORD ECONOLINE VAN, VIN

#FDEE14L1VHB91899, Appellant,



v.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

_______________________________________________________



On appeal from the 105th District Court

of Kleberg County, Texas

_______________________________________________________



MEMORANDUM OPINION



Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam



Appellant, JOSE LUIS GENARO RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas, in cause number 06-592-D. Judgment in this cause was signed on December 18, 2006. An untimely motion for new trial was filed on February 28, 2007. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant's notice of appeal was due on January 17, 2007, but was not filed until February 28, 2007.

Notice of this defect was given 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.

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. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM





Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 23rd day of August, 2007.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.