In the Interest of T. D. D. and D. L. J., Jr., minor children--Appeal from County Court at Law of Anderson County

Annotate this Case

NO. 12-07-00343-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

APPEAL FROM THE

IN THE INTEREST OF T.D.D.

AND D.L.J., JR., COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

MINOR CHILDREN

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This accelerated appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a). See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 109.002(a) (Vernon 2002) (procedures for accelerated appeal under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to appeal in which termination of parent-child relationship is in issue). The trial court s judgment was signed on June 25, 2007. Under rule of appellate procedure 26.1(b), Appellant s notice of appeal was due to have been filed within 20 days after the judgment [was] signed, i.e., July 16, 2007. However, Appellant filed a motion for new trial on June 29, 2007 and a notice of appeal on September 11, 2007. A motion for new trial does not extend the time to perfect an accelerated appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 28.1. Therefore, because Appellant s notice of appeal was not filed on or before July 16, 2007, the notice was untimely filed and this court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

 

On September 13, 2007, this court notified Appellant pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a) that her notice of appeal was untimely. Appellant was further informed that unless the record was amended on or before September 24, 2007 to establish the jurisdiction of this court, the appeal would be dismissed. That deadline has now passed, and Appellant has neither established the jurisdiction of this court or otherwise responded to its September 13, 2007 notice. Because this court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as provided by Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

Opinion delivered September 26, 2007.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

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.