In the Interest of O.J.N., a Child Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Lubbock County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-22-00325-CV IN THE INTEREST OF O.J.N., A CHILD On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. DC-2022-FM-0905, Honorable Mark Hocker, Presiding December 19, 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant, Katelyn Hannah, appeals from an Order in Suit Affecting the ParentChild Relationship issued by the trial court. We dismiss the untimely appeal for want of jurisdiction. The trial court signed the order on July 25, 2022. Hannah timely filed a motion for new trial. Hannah’s notice of appeal was, therefore, due within ninety days after the order was signed, i.e. by October 24, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.1(a). Hannah filed a notice of appeal on October 27, 2022. The following day, Hannah electronically submitted a motion for an extension of time to file her late notice of appeal. The Clerk of this Court rejected the motion, however, as it failed to include a certificate of service and a certificate of conference as required by the appellate rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(4), (5). Hannah was notified of these deficiencies and was directed to correct and file the motion by October 31, 2022. Hannah never filed a corrected motion for extension. A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoking this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 26.1. We may extend the time to file a notice of appeal by fifteen days if an appellant files a notice of appeal and a motion for an extension of time that reasonably explains the need for an extension. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b). A motion for extension is implied if the notice of appeal is filed within fifteen days after the notice deadline. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). However, an appellant must still reasonably explain the delay in filing the notice of appeal when a motion for extension is implied. Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998). By letter of November 17, 2022, we notified Hannah that a motion for extension was implied because her notice of appeal was filed within fifteen days of the appellate deadline. We, thus, directed her to file a written response explaining why her notice of appeal was filed untimely. We advised Hannah that if she did not file a response by November 30, we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Hannah has not filed a response to date. Because Hannah failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her untimely notice of appeal, we cannot grant an implied motion for extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b); Phillips v. Gunn, No. 07-14-00094-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4027, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 11, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). And, as her late notice of appeal failed 2 to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. 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.
