Herdis Jackson Sr. v. The State of Texas for the protection of Versie Lavelle Griffin Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § HERDIS JACKSON SR., No. 08-22-00075-CV § Appellant, Appeal from the § v. 98th District Court § THE STATE OF TEXAS for the Protection of Versie Lavelle Griffin, of Travis County, Texas1 § (TC# D-1-FM-21-005293) Appellee. § MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Herdis Jackson Sr., proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal on March 23, 2022, attempting to appeal the trial court’s final judgment entered on November 18, 2021. Because we were concerned that we lacked jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, we sent Appellant a letter on May 2, 2022, stating that it appeared that he had failed to timely file his notice of appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1. We also informed Appellant that unless he responded within ten days and showed grounds for continuing the appeal, this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.R.APP.P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3(a). On May 24, Appellant submitted a handwritten note where he requested an extension and the appointment of counsel, but he did not address the 1 We hear this case on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals. See TEX.R.APP.P. 41.3 1 untimely filing of his notice of appeal. A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoking this court’s jurisdiction. See TEX.R.APP.P. 25.1(b), 26.1. The trial court’s judgment was signed on November 18, 2021, and no post-judgment motion was filed to extend the appellate deadline. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1(a). Thus, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due December 18, 2021, but was not filed until March 23, 2022. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1. The record shows that Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely and that he has failed to file a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. As such, we are unable to consider Appellant’s request for an extension because the time-period for filing an extension has passed. Additionally, we do not have authority to appoint counsel to Appellant and even if we did, the appointment would not cure the jurisdictional problem. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1, 42.3(a), (c), 43.2(f). May 27, 2022 YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
