In the Interest of E.C.S. and R.C.S., Children v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-24-00063-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF E.C.S. AND R.C.S., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017-528,122, Honorable Tom Brummett, Presiding
April 30, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Taylor Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Final
Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship. We dismiss the untimely appeal for
want of jurisdiction.
The trial court signed the final order on December 11, 2023. Thereafter, Smith
filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law on January 9, 2024, and a motion
for new trial on January 11, 2024. Both were untimely, however. The request for findings
was due by January 2, 2024, and the motion for new trial was due January 10, 2024. See
TEX. R. CIV. P. 296 (requiring requests for findings to be filed within twenty days after
judgment is signed); 329b(a) (requiring a motion for new trial to be filed within thirty days
after judgment is signed). Because Smith’s request for findings and motion for new trial
were untimely filed, they did not operate to extend the notice of appeal deadline. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Accordingly, Smith’s notice of appeal was due within thirty days
after the final order was signed, i.e. by January 10, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Smith
filed a notice of appeal on February 9, 2024.
A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoking this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–17 (Tex. 1997). By
letter of March 26, 2024, we notified Smith that his notice of appeal appeared untimely
and directed him to show how we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Smith filed a
response claiming that his form statement of inability to afford payment of court costs filed
on December 7, 2023, constituted a notice of appeal. A statement of inability to pay is
not a notice of appeal and does not invoke an appellate court’s jurisdiction. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 25.1; Singh v. Shaghaghi, No. 01-11-00996-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5672, at
*2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 12, 2012, no pet.); Walton v. Walton, No. 05-21-
00394-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 9305, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2021, no
pet.) (mem. op.). No document attempting to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction was filed. To
interpret Smith’s statement otherwise, would generally render the filing of a notice of
appeal superfluous.
Smith’s response also indicates that he seeks to appeal the Order on Taylor Ray
Smith’s Declaration of Inability to Pay Court Costs signed by the trial court on January 31,
2024. The order denies Smith a free appellate record pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure
145. Such an order may only be challenged “by motion filed in the court of appeals with
jurisdiction over the appeal from the judgment in the case.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(g)(1).
2
Because we are without jurisdiction to review the Final Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-
Child Relationship, we have no authority to review Smith’s challenge to the Order on
Taylor Ray Smith’s Declaration of Inability to Pay Court Costs. See Ferero v. Guzman,
No. 01-23-00363-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 6157, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Aug. 15, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (holding same).
Accordingly, we dismiss Smith’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3(a).
Per Curiam
3