In the Interest of I.M., a Child Appeal from 57th 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. 04-22-00531-CV IN THE INTEREST OF I.M., a Child From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021PA00828 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 19, 2022 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On March 22, 2022, the trial court signed a final judgment terminating appellant’s parental rights to her child. Because this is an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on April 11, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.1(b), 28.4. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due to be filed on April 26, 2022. See id. R. 26.3. On August 19, 2022, appellant filed a defective notice of appeal. 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 fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See 04-22-00531-CV id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C); see also Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884, 886–87 (Tex. 2003) (holding “a reasonable explanation” is any plausible statement of circumstances indicating that failure to timely file was not deliberate or intentional but was the result of inadvertence, mistake or mischance, and that “any conduct short of deliberate or intentional noncompliance qualifies as inadvertence, mistake or mischance”) (citation omitted). This court ordered appellant to show cause in writing by October 3, 2022, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We advised appellant that failure to respond timely would result in dismissal of this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant did not file a response. Accordingly, because appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation for failure to file a timely notice of appeal, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C), 42.3(b), (c); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 615. PER CURIAM -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.
