Appe al Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed January 10 , 202 3

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 1

- 0 0 725

- C V

REGINALD DAWAYNE BOO KMAN , Appellant

V.
JULIA JURICE BOOKMAN , Appell ee

O n Appeal from the County Court at Law

Grim es Cou n ty, Texas Tria l C our t Ca u se No. 35385

- CCL

M EMO RANDUM O PINIO N

This is an appeal from a protective order signed May 1 9 , 2021

. Appellant
did not file a ny motions in the trial court after the protective order was signed, and thus under normal circumstances, he w ould b e required to file a notice of appeal by June 20, 2021

. Tex. R. App. P. 4 .1(a), 26.1(a)

. Instead, on Novembe r 15, 2021, appellant filed a notice of res tricted appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 30. Restricted app eals may be timely not ice d 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 perfec t a restricted appeal, the appellate record refutes appellant ’ s contenti on a restricted appeal is availabl e to him. For appellant to proceed with a restricted appeal, he must show, among other things, that h e “ did not participate

— either in person or through counsel

— in the
hearin g that resulted in the [order] complained of. ” Tex. R. App. P. 30 ; see als o Ex

pa rte E.H. , 602 S.W.3d 486, 495 (Tex. 2020). If appellan t does not satisfy this requirement
, the court of appeals lacks jur isdiction to decide the appeal. See E x parte E.H. , 602 S.W.3d at 496.
The rep orter ’ s record for this cas e comprises a transcript of a May 18, 2021 hearing before the trial court , conducted remote ly by Zoom . Appellant personally appeared at that hearing with the use of that soft ware, a nd at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court announced it would grant the underlying applicatio n for a protective order and would “ submit the signed orders in just a minute. ”
U ltimately, the tria l court signed the protective order the following day, May 19,
2021. It is beyond dispute that th e May 18 , 2021 hearing resulted in the protective
order a ppellant is seeking to appeal from, and moreover, appellant p articipated in person at that hear ing. 1

On November 16 , 2022, this court inf ormed appellant by letter about the untimely notice of appeal an d the app arent unav ailability of a restricted appeal, a nd
warned him h is appeal was subject to dismissal if he failed to show this court had ju risdiction ove r the appeal . Appellant ’ s response relies on the Texas Supreme

1 Appellant has implied that, because the hearing was c onducted through Zoom rather than in person in a courtroom, he might not have participated in the hearing for purposes of Rule 30. However, the participat ion implicating Rule 30 does not have to occur in the courtroom itself. See Lambda Constr. Co. v. Chamberlin Waterproofing & Roofin g Sys., Inc. , 784 S.W.2d 122, 125 (Tex. App.

— Austin 1990, writ denied ) ( holding a party could not appeal by writ of error, t he predecessor to a restricted appeal, because it had participated in a telephone hearing preceding the underlying judgment).3

Court ’ s decision in Pik e

- Grant v. Grant , 447 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2014)

. Quoting the Cou rt ’ s observation that “ courts [must] liberally construe the non

participation requirement for r estricted 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 i n the requisite hearing, an d thus view him as properly bring ing
a restric ted appeal. But there is no way to construe the non

- participation requirement here to properly permit appellant to use a restricted a ppeal. The record conclusively establishes that the trial court held a hearing on May 18, 2 021, appellant appeared at the hearing by Zoom, and that hearing resulted in the complained

- of protect ive 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 so me indication that she had been present at a final hearing), wit

h 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 h e signed the judgment prior to the trial cou rt entering the judgment). Accordingly, due to the lack o f any basis for proceeding with a restricted appeal or otherwise exercising jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss the appea l for want of jurisdiction.

PER CUR IAM

P anel consi sts of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot an d Wilson.