COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-12-00529-CV

ROKEYA BEGUM APPELLANT V. SONIA JAHAN APPELLEE

---------- FROM THE 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------- Appellant Rokeya Begum attempts to appeal from a judgment signed November 28, 2012. No motion for new trial was filed, making the notice of appeal due December 28, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Begum filed a notice of appeal on December 31, 2012.

On January 7, 2013, we sent a letter to Begum stating our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because Begum’s notice of appeal was not See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. timely filed. We informed Begum that unless he, or any party desiring to continue the appeal, filed a response showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal on or before January 17, 2013, the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. To date, we have received no response.

The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and absent a timely-filed notice of appeal or extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). 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 period in which appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under rule 26.3. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. However, when a motion for extension is implied, it is still necessary for the appellant to reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.

Because Begum’s notice of appeal was untimely and because Begum did not provide any explanation for needing an extension, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.3; Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; Chilkewitz v. Winter, 25 S.W.3d 382, 383 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.).

PER CURIAM PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: March 28, 2013