25 26 v. 918 519 522 1996 25 26 26 43 (2011)

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

PANEL:  GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

Tex.R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  June 16, 2011

FOOTNOTES

FN3. We also note that Appellant has not offered a reasonable explanation for his need to extend the time to file the notice of appeal.   See Tex.R.App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), (b)(2)(A).   Appellant states in his motion that he had immigration proceedings pending at the time he filed his application for writ of habeas corpus, that he “had to confer with his counsel in the immigration proceedings to determine what course of action he wished to pursue in this proceeding,” and that “that determination extended past the time for filing a Notice of Appeal.”  “[I]f the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for the extension demonstrate that the decision to delay filing notice of appeal until after the appropriate deadline was a deliberate or intentional decision, we may not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.”  Rodman v. State, 47 S.W.3d 545, 548 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2000, no pet.) (holding no reasonable explanation provided when the appellant decided to appeal after he was indicted for other crimes and needed to appeal the original conviction to preserve his eligibility for parole in the other cases);  see generally Amegy Bank of Tex., N.A. v. Titan Services, LLC, No. 02–09–00420–CV, 2010 WL 87095, at *1 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth Jan. 7, 2010, no pet.) (mem.op.) (holding the appellant's explanation was inadequate because it reflected that it “consciously ignored the deadline in favor of deliberately evaluating whether to file an appeal”)..  FN3. We also note that Appellant has not offered a reasonable explanation for his need to extend the time to file the notice of appeal.   See Tex.R.App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), (b)(2)(A).   Appellant states in his motion that he had immigration proceedings pending at the time he filed his application for writ of habeas corpus, that he “had to confer with his counsel in the immigration proceedings to determine what course of action he wished to pursue in this proceeding,” and that “that determination extended past the time for filing a Notice of Appeal.”  “[I]f the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for the extension demonstrate that the decision to delay filing notice of appeal until after the appropriate deadline was a deliberate or intentional decision, we may not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.”  Rodman v. State, 47 S.W.3d 545, 548 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2000, no pet.) (holding no reasonable explanation provided when the appellant decided to appeal after he was indicted for other crimes and needed to appeal the original conviction to preserve his eligibility for parole in the other cases);  see generally Amegy Bank of Tex., N.A. v. Titan Services, LLC, No. 02–09–00420–CV, 2010 WL 87095, at *1 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth Jan. 7, 2010, no pet.) (mem.op.) (holding the appellant's explanation was inadequate because it reflected that it “consciously ignored the deadline in favor of deliberately evaluating whether to file an appeal”).