Opinion
No. 05-04-00470-CV
Opinion issued July 6, 2004.
On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 01-05863-G.
Dismissed.
Before Justices MOSELEY, BRIDGES, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 22, 2003, the trial court signed an order dismissing, with prejudice, appellant's claims against the City of Dallas. On April 15, 2004, one hundred and fifteen days after the order was signed, appellant filed a restricted notice of appeal concerning the December 22, 2003 order. The record contains a January 20, 2004 motion for new trial, and, therefore, appellant is not eligible to pursue a restricted appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 30. Because a timely motion for new trial was filed, appellant had up to 105 days after the order was signed to file her notice of appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 26.1; 26.3. However, appellant's notice of appeal was filed 115 days after the December order was signed. Accordingly, by the Court's letter dated May 25, 2004, appellant was directed to file a letter brief explaining the Court's jurisdiction over this appeal wherein the notice of appeal was untimely filed.
In her jurisdictional brief appellant "asserts that the date from which appeal must be taken is April 5, 2004," the date her motion for new trial was denied. Also appellant argues that the December 22, 2003 order is void or voidable "for lack of a Reporter's record in the District Court on that date." Appellate rule 26.1(a) clearly states that the appellate timetable for filing a notice of appeal is calculated from the date the "judgment is signed," and not from the date a motion for new trial is denied. Alleged voidness of the order on appeal does not alter the timetable for filing the notice of appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 26.1(a). If appellant desires to challenge an alleged void or voidable order by appeal, she must commence her appeal with a timely notice of appeal.
Accordingly, on the Court's own motion, this appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(a).