In the Interest of E.J.B., a child Appeal from 255th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion by chief justice wright)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 1, 2016 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00666-CV IN THE INTEREST OF E.J.B., A CHILD On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-07948 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright By letter dated June 27, 2016, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over the appeal because the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely. We instructed appellant to file a letter brief addressing the jurisdictional issue and gave appellee an opportunity to respond. If no timely post-judgement motion extending the appellate timetable is filed, a notice of appeal is due thirty days after the date the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b). The trial court signed the judgment on December 7, 2015. Appellant did not file a timely post-judgment motion extending the appellate timetable. Accordingly, the notice of appeal was due on January 6, 2016, thirty days after the date the judgment was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on May 24, 2016, more than four months past the due date. In his letter brief, appellant informs the Court that he did not learn of the trial court’s December 7th judgment until March 11, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 306a(4). Neither rule of civil procedure 306a(4) nor rule of appellate procedure 4.2(a)(1) helps appellant, however, because he concedes that he received actual notice of the judgment on March 11, 2016, which was more than ninety days after the date the judgment was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 306a(4); TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(a)(1); Levit v. Adams, 850 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam); Florance v. State, 352 S.W.3d 867, 873 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.). Moreover, although appellant filed the notice of appeal within six months after the date the judgment was signed, the notice of appeal does not meet the requirements for a restricted appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(7). Because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b); 42.3(a). /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE 160666F.P05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF E.J.B., A CHILD On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-07948. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating. No. 05-16-00666-CV In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that appellee KENDRA NIKOLE BALDWIN recover her costs of this appeal from appellant DANIEL JOSEPH MAVERO. Judgment entered September 1, 2016. –3–
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.
