Appeal Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed January 10, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00725-CV

REGINALD DAWAYNE BOOKMAN, Appellant

V.

JULIA JURICE BOOKMAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Grimes County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 35385-CCL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a protective order signed May 19, 2021. Appellant 

did not file any motions in the trial court after the protective order was signed, and 

thus under normal circumstances, he would be required to file a notice of appeal by 

June 20, 2021. Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.1(a). Instead, on November 15, 2021, 

appellant filed a notice of restricted appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 30. Restricted appeals may be timely noticed within six months after 

the underlying order or judgment is signed. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c).
2

But although the notice was filed in time to perfect a restricted appeal, the 

appellate record refutes appellant’s contention a restricted appeal is available to 

him. For appellant to proceed with a restricted appeal, he must show, among other 

things, that he “did not participate—either in person or through counsel—in the 

hearing that resulted in the [order] complained of.” Tex. R. App. P. 30; see also Ex 

parte E.H., 602 S.W.3d 486, 495 (Tex. 2020). If appellant does not satisfy this 

requirement, the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to decide the appeal. See Ex 

parte E.H., 602 S.W.3d at 496.

The reporter’s record for this case comprises a transcript of a May 18, 2021 

hearing before the trial court, conducted remotely by Zoom. Appellant personally

appeared at that hearing with the use of that software, and at the conclusion of the 

hearing, the trial court announced it would grant the underlying application for a 

protective order and would “submit the signed orders in just a minute.” 

Ultimately, the trial court signed the protective order the following day, May 19, 

2021. It is beyond dispute that the May 18, 2021 hearing resulted in the protective 

order appellant is seeking to appeal from, and moreover, appellant participated in 

person at that hearing.1

On November 16, 2022, this court informed appellant by letter about the 

untimely notice of appeal and the apparent unavailability of a restricted appeal, and 

warned him his appeal was subject to dismissal if he failed to show this court had 

jurisdiction over the appeal. Appellant’s response relies on the Texas Supreme 

1 Appellant has implied that, because the hearing was conducted through Zoom rather 

than in person in a courtroom, he might not have participated in the hearing for purposes of Rule 

30. However, the participation implicating Rule 30 does not have to occur in the courtroom 

itself. See Lambda Constr. Co. v. Chamberlin Waterproofing & Roofing Sys., Inc., 784 S.W.2d 

122, 125 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, writ denied) (holding a party could not appeal by writ of

error, the predecessor to a restricted appeal, because it had participated in a telephone hearing 

preceding the underlying judgment).
3

Court’s decision in Pike-Grant v. Grant, 447 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2014). 

Quoting the Court’s observation that “courts [must] liberally construe the nonparticipation requirement for restricted appeals in favor of the right to appeal,” see 

id. at 886, appellant contends that the facts require this court to view him as not 

having participated in the requisite hearing, and thus view him as properly bringing 

a restricted appeal. But there is no way to construe the non-participation 

requirement here to properly permit appellant to use a restricted appeal. The 

record conclusively establishes that the trial court held a hearing on May 18, 2021, 

appellant appeared at the hearing by Zoom, and that hearing resulted in the 

complained-of protective order. By any measure, appellant’s participation in the 

underlying hearing prevents him from maintaining a restricted appeal here. 

Compare Pike-Grant, 447 S.W.3d at 886 (holding an appellant was not present at a 

final trial court hearing, and thus appellant could maintain a restricted appeal, even 

though the record contained some indication that she had been present at a final 

hearing), with Blankinship v. Blankinship, 572 S.W.2d 807, 808 (Tex. Civ. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 1978, no writ) (holding an appellant participated in a hearing 

resulting in a judgment when he signed the judgment prior to the trial court 

entering the judgment). Accordingly, due to the lack of any basis for proceeding 

with a restricted appeal or otherwise exercising jurisdiction over this appeal, we 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Wilson.