NO. 07-06-0372-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B OCTOBER 26, 2006

______________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF T.L.B ., A CHILD,

_________________________________ FROM THE CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF POT TER COUNT Y; NO. 71,632-2; H ONORABLE PAM ELA SIRMON, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Appellant

Levohn H. Brow n attempts to appeal an order that g ranted a motion for nonsuit filed by appellee Shanda L ynn Vance and dismissed the suit she broug ht seeking termination of Brown’s par ental rig hts. We dismiss the appeal for w ant of jurisdic

tion. Vance filed her original petition in November 2 005, in c ause number 71,63 2-2, in the County Co urt at

Law No. 2 of Potter County . A letter fro m Brown ind icates the petition was served on him in Indiana where he is incarcerated. The trial court granted Vance’s motion for nonsuit and dismissed the case without pr ejudice in a w ritten order sig ned and filed February

22, 2006. The clerk’s recor d shows the dismissa l order disposed of all parties and issues i n the case. No moti ons extending the deadline for perfection of appeal1 Brown’ s not ice of appeal also mad e reference to the late r proceeding, cause

number 72, 293, also i n the County Court at Law

No. 2 of Potter C ounty, in w hich an order 2 were filed, making March 24, 2006 the last day on which Brown could perfect an ordinary appeal from the trial court’s or der. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1(a) (unless exception applies, notice of appeal must be filed wi thin thirty days after j udgment is si gned); In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35, 38 (Tex. 1997) (orig. proceed ing) (appe l late ti metables run from date dismissal order sig ned). Brow n filed his orig inal notice of appea l on September 20, 2006, maki ng it u ntim ely. Because the record i ndicates Brow n did not parti cipate in any hearing in this case and did not timely

file a post-j udgment motion or request for fi ndings of fact or conclus ions of law, we must also determine whether his notice was timely to perfect a restricted appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 30. Notice of appea l in a restricted appeal must be f iled within six months of the judgment or o rder complain ed of. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1(c). Brown’s notice of appe al was f iled 210 d ays , or seven months, after the trial court’s order and was also untimely to perfect a restricted appeal. By letter dated O ctober 11, 2006, w e notified Brow n t ha t his notice of appeal appeared untimely, and advised t hat we w ould consider

our juris diction over the appeal on or after October 23, 2006. Brow n filed a response to our letter on Oc

tober 23. Mos t of the information contai ned in Brow n’s response pertains to a later termi nation proceedi ng rather than to the nonsui ted proceeding that is the subject of this appeal. The response does notalter our pr

eliminary conclusion that Brow n’s notice of appeal was untimel y wi th respect to this appeal. 1terminating his parental rights w as entered on August 30, 2006. His appe al of that order is pending i n this court as No. 07-06- 0371-CV. 3 Our authority

on a ppeal is dependent on a timely notice of appeal. See Verburgt v. Dorner

, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) ( ap plying former rule). No timely notice of ap peal having bee n filed , we must d ismiss th e appe al. Accor dingly, havin g gi ven th e required notice, and without ex pressing any opinion on the merits of Br own’s atte mpted appeal from the dismissal of Vance’s suit, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdic tion. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3.

James T. Campbell Justice