In the Interest of H.H., a Child Appeal from 237th District Court of Lubbock County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-15-00308-CV IN THE INTEREST OF H.H., A CHILD On Appeal from the 237th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2001-514,345, Honorable Cecil Puryear, Presiding September 18, 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, G.H., attempts to appeal a Final Order in Suit Affecting the ParentChild Relationship signed on July 17, 2015. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and because G.H. failed to comply with the Court’s order requiring a written explanation for his late notice of appeal. G.H.’s notice of appeal was due on August 6, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). G.H. filed a notice of appeal with this Court on August 10, 2015, but did not file a motion requesting an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. As such, G.H.’s notice of appeal failed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, the court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the deadline expires, the appellant files the notice of appeal along with a motion requesting an extension that reasonably explains the need for an extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b). Although a motion for extension is implied when the appellant tenders a notice of appeal within 15 days after the notice deadline, it is still necessary for the appellant to reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998). Because G.H. filed a notice of appeal within 15 days after the deadline, a motion for extension was implied. However, the Court ordered G.H. to file a written response by September 3, 2015, explaining why the notice of appeal was filed late. The Court also informed G.H. that the failure to comply with the Court’s directive would result in dismissal of the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). G.H. did not respond to the Court’s directive for a written explanation. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and because G.H. failed to comply with a court order requiring a response within a specified time. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). Mackey K. Hancock Justice 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.
