In the Interest of A. J. U., M. A. U. and A. U. Children Appeal from 315th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued July 19, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00371-CV ——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF A.J.U., M.A.U. AND A.U., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2014-02620J MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant attempts to appeal from the trial court’s judgment signed April 8, 2016. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and because appellant failed to comply with this Court’s order requiring a written explanation for the late notice of appeal. Because this is an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, the appeal from this order is accelerated. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(a) (West 2014); In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 925 (Tex. 2005). The notice of appeal in an accelerated appeal must be filed within 20 days after the date the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. We may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party properly files a motion for extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. 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 15-day extension period provided by Rule 26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (Tex. 1997). The judgment was signed on April 8, 2016. Because this is an accelerated appeal, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on April 28, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until May 3, 2016. Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal, though the notice was filed within the Verburgt period. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617–18. Thus, a motion for extension is implied, but appellant must reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998) (holding that appellant should be able to prosecute 2 appeal despite notice of appeal filed within the Verburgt period if appellant can reasonably explain need for extension). On May 12, 2016, we notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by May 23, 2016, appellant filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant filed no response. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and because appellant failed to comply with a court order requiring a response within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c); In the Interest of H.H., No. 07–15– 00308–CV, 2015 WL 5559922, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 18, 2015, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to respond to court order to reasonably explain untimely filing of notice of appeal). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle. 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.
