Court Opinion

ID: 9363485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-16 00:11:35.255749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:32.009618
License: Public Domain

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).
       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).

                                               2
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 non-
participation 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.

                                          3