In the Interest of G.S., a child Appeal from 407th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00237-CV IN THE INTEREST OF G.S., a Child From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016-PA-00112 Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 7, 2017 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant attempts to appeal from a final order terminating her parental rights. An appeal from such an order is accelerated. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 109.002, 263.405(a) (West 2014). In an accelerated appeal, absent a timely motion to extend time under Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, “the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is strictly set at twenty days after the judgment is signed, with no exceptions....” In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005); see TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). The filing of a motion for new trial will not extend the time to perfect an accelerated appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(b); In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d at 927. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal, if any, must be filed within fifteen days after the twenty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3; In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d at 927. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice 04-17-00237-CV 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) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, once the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule 26.3 passes, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction. Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617-18. Because this is an accelerated appeal, and the trial court signed the order of termination on February 28, 2017, the notice of appeal was due on March 20, 2017. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b); In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d at 928. Although appellant filed a timely motion for new trial, this motion did not extend the appellate deadline. In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d at 928. Appellant filed the notice of appeal on April 13, 2017, forty-four days after the order of termination was signed. Hence, appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b); In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d at 927-28. Further, appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file her notice of appeal and did not file her notice of appeal within the fifteen-day Verburgt period, or before April 4, 2017. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617-18. On May 6, 2017, this Court notified appellant that her appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless she filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant, through her appointed counsel, filed a response stating that her appellate attorney was not appointed until April 27, 2017, and for this reason, requested that this Court retain jurisdiction. In the absence of a timely notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal, and therefore, can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1; In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d at 927-28; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617-18. -2- 04-17-00237-CV It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM -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.