Court Opinion

ID: 9954802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 22:11:44.81688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:03.203381
License: Public Domain

03/26/2024
                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                               AT KNOXVILLE
                                              March 21, 2024

                                     IN RE LACHION W. ET AL.

                        Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Knox County
                          No. 226437        Timothy E. Irwin, Judge
                           ___________________________________

                                  No. E2023-01759-COA-R3-PT
                             ___________________________________

This is an appeal from a final order entered on November 3, 2023. The notice of appeal
was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until December 8, 2023, more than thirty days
after the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because
the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

                   Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J.; JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J.; AND KRISTI M. DAVIS, J.

Christine Dummer, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Tiara W.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter, and Jordan K. Crews, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, for the appellee, Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION1

       The Knox County Juvenile Court (“trial court”) entered a final judgment terminating
the appellant’s parental rights on November 3, 2023. On December 8, 2023, the appellant,
Tiara W. (“Appellant”), filed a pro se notice of appeal in this case wherein she states that
she is seeking to appeal the December 8, 2023 order from the trial court.2 The notice of

1
    Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides:

          This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse
          or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion
          would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it
          shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not
          be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.
2
    We note that Appellant states on her notice of appeal that she is appealing the judgment entered on
appeal was presented for filing in person to the Appellate Court Clerk’s Office. After the
filing of Appellant’s notice of appeal, the trial court clerk notified this Court that the notice
of appeal was untimely in this case.

        Upon our review of the record on appeal, the order terminating Appellant’s parental
rights was signed by the trial court judge, signed by counsel for the appellee, and included
a certificate of service by the appellee’s counsel, certifying that the order was served on
Appellant in the Knox County Detention Facility and the guardian ad litem on November
1, 2023. The trial court’s order was then stamped as filed on November 3, 2023. On its
face, the order appears to comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

        In order to be timely, a notice of appeal must “be filed with the clerk of the appellate
court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment appealed from.” Tenn. R. App.
P. 4(a). “The thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and
jurisdictional in civil cases.” Albert v. Frye, 145 S.W.3d 526, 528 (Tenn. 2004). If a notice
of appeal is not filed in a civil case in a timely fashion from the date of entry of the final
judgment, we are not at liberty to waive the procedural defect and must dismiss the appeal.
See Arfken & Assocs., P.A. v. Simpson Bridge Co., Inc., 85 S.W.3d 789, 791 (Tenn. Ct.
App. 2002); Am. Steinwinter Investor Grp. v. Am. Steinwinter, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 569, 571
(Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Jefferson v. Pneumo Services Corp., 699 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Tenn.
Ct. App. 1985). This is true even in a termination of parental rights appeal notwithstanding
the argument advanced by Appellant in her response to this Court’s show cause order. See,
e.g., In re Jayden B.-H., No. E2013-00873-COA-R3-PT; 2013 WL 4505389, at * 1 (Tenn.
Ct. App., filed Aug. 21, 2013). In addition, as the Advisory Commission’s Comments to
Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) state, nothing in the rules of appellate
procedure “or any other rule” allows the time for filing a notice of appeal “to be extended
beyond the specified 30 days,” although in appropriate circumstances an otherwise
untimely appeal may be taken by first securing relief from the trial court pursuant to
Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.

        Determining that the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of entry of the
final judgment, this Court entered an order directing Appellant to show cause why this
appeal should not be dismissed based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the
untimely notice of appeal. After having been found indigent and with appointed counsel
to represent her, Appellant filed a response to this Court’s show cause order. In her
response, Appellant stated that she was incarcerated during the entirety of this termination
of parental rights proceeding and that she had expected to be transported to court to attend
the termination trial.

       According to Appellant, she was unable to attend the trial because she was not
transported from the detention facility to court as she expected. Appellant states that if she

December 8, 2023; however, there is no court order included in the record that was entered on that date.
                                                  -2-
had been transported to court, she likely would have been appointed counsel to represent
her in the termination proceeding, and counsel would have been responsible for timely
filing the notice of appeal on behalf of Appellant. According to Appellant, she “was at the
mercy of the Juvenile Court staff, the United States Postal Service, and the staff of the
Detention Facility to provide her with a copy of the Termination Order and also with the
means and opportunity to respond in a timely manner that she intended to appeal the
decision of the trial court.” As such, Appellant states that “[t]his Court should not deny
Appellant the opportunity to argue for her most fundamental constitutional right, the right
to parent her children, based upon a deadline that was missed by a mere 5 (five) days due
to circumstances that were not within Appellant’s control.”

        Despite Appellant’s argument regarding the circumstances of her transportation for
the hearing and service of the final judgment, Appellant has not filed a motion pursuant to
Rule 60 seeking relief from the trial court’s November 3, 2023 judgment. This Court
simply does not have the authority to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, and such
failure to timely file a notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction.

       Because the notice of appeal in this case was filed more than thirty (30) days after
the date of entry of the final order, we lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider the
appeal. This appeal is dismissed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant, Tiara W., for
which execution may issue if necessary.

                                                  PER CURIAM

                                            -3-