Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00220-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J.H.L.
From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013-PA-01904
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 24, 2015
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Because this is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating parental rights, the notice
of appeal should have been filed within twenty days after the judgment was signed. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 26.1(b). Motions for new trial and other specific post-judgment motions will not extend
the time to perfect an accelerated appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(b). In this case, the trial court
signed its Order of Termination on June 20, 2014. Therefore, any notice of appeal was due on
July 10, 2014. Appellant filed her notice of appeal on April 10, 2015. Accordingly, appellant’s
notice of appeal was not timely. Therefore, on April 22, 2015, this court ordered appellant to file
a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely
manner. Our order cautioned appellant that if she failed to respond within the time provided, her
appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c).
04-15-00220-CV
On June 5, 2015, appellant’s counsel filed a “Response to Order Dated April 22, 2015 and
Request for Mandamus Relief.” Counsel acknowledges this is an accelerated appeal and that the
final judgment was signed on June 20, 2014. In the response, counsel asserts that language in the
final order stating the “parties have waived any objections to the hearing by an associate judge and
do hereby waive their right to de novo review” is ineffective and unenforceable because appellant
did not intend to waive a de novo hearing. Therefore, according to counsel, a de novo hearing is
still required. 1 However, because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, counsel has not shown
how this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Counsel also asserts the “trial court should be
directed as mandamus relief, to place the matter back on the docket and hear the de novo matter at
a date in the future agreeable to all parties.”
Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, the appeal is dismissed. If counsel wishes
to request mandamus relief, he must do so by filing a petition for writ of mandamus that fully
complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.
PER CURIAM
1
On June 20, 2014, appellant’s trial counsel requested a de novo hearing. On March 18, 2015, the trial court denied
the motion on the grounds that it lacked plenary power to entertain the de novo request.
-2-
in the Interest of JHL
Combined Opinion