VACATE and DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 11, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01162-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF O.E.S., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-13200 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Pedersen, III, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

The trial court signed a default judgment in the underlying lawsuit on 

November 12, 2020. Appellant filed a motion seeking to vacate the default 

judgment in March 2022 that was denied following a hearing before an associate 

judge. Following a de novo hearing, the trial court signed an order adopting the 

associate judge’s order on October 26, 2022. Appellant appeals from this order. 

Because it appeared the trial court lacked plenary power when it signed the 

appealed order, we questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal and directed 

appellant to file a letter brief addressing the jurisdictional issue. 

Judicial action taken after the expiration of the court’s plenary power is a 

nullity, and any orders signed outside the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction are 
 –2– 

void. See Malone v. Hampton, 182 S.W.3d 465, 468 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no 

pet.). We have no jurisdiction to consider the merits of an appeal from a void 

order. See Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 

2012). When a party appeals a void order, we must declare the order void and 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 

S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995). 

 Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial or motion to modify 

within thirty days of the signing of the default judgment, the trial court’s plenary 

power over the judgment expired on December 12, 2020. See TEX. RS. CIV. P.

329b(a) (motion for new trial due within thirty days after judgment is signed); 

329b(d) (trial court retains plenary power over judgment for thirty days after 

judgment is signed). Consequently, the associate judge’s and the appealed order of 

the trial court were signed after the trial court’s plenary power expired. Although 

appellant filed a letter brief, he addressed the merits of the appeal instead of the 

jurisdictional issue – our jurisdiction over an order signed after the expiration of 

the trial court’s plenary power. 

For reasons stated above, the appealed order is void. Accordingly, we 

vacate the trial court’s October 26, 2022 order and dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. 

221162F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF O.E.S., A 

CHILD 

No. 05-22-01162-CV 

 On Appeal from the 256th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-13200. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Goldstein participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial 

court’s October 26, 2022 order and DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

 We ORDER appellees, The State of Texas and Sahira Gelanie Taveras 

Santana, recover their costs of this appeal from appellant, Orlando David Santana. 

Judgment entered April 11, 2023