Court Filings

The Seventh District Court of Appeals dismissed Tyler Hernandez's appeal from a trial court's Final Decree of Divorce for want of prosecution. The clerk's record was due but not filed because Hernandez failed to arrange payment; the court directed him to pay by a deadline and warned the appeal would be dismissed if he did not. He failed to comply or to elect filing an appendix instead, so the appellate court dismissed the appeal under the appellate rules permitting dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Progressive Mountain Insurance Company’s attempt to appeal a trial court order awarding attorney fees as a discovery sanction because the order was not final. The trial court reserved the amount of fees for a later hearing, so the case remained pending below. Progressive did not seek interlocutory review under the statutory procedure (OCGA § 5-6-34(b)) by obtaining a certificate of immediate review. Because Progressive failed to follow the required interlocutory appeal steps, the Court of Appeals concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted Applicant Katrina Cooper's motion to withdraw her application for discretionary appeal in case A26D0439. The court ordered that the application is deemed withdrawn and issued a formal minute entry reflecting that decision on April 13, 2026. There is no opinion on the merits because the procedural request to withdraw was uncontested and dispositive of the application.

The Court of Appeals dismissed a direct appeal by plaintiffs Whitney Garland and Thomas Nichols from a trial-court order awarding attorney fees to defendant Provectus Unum, LLC. The plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed their contract lawsuit, but the trial court reopened the case because Provectus had a pending counterclaim for fees and then awarded fees under Georgia law. The Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction because appeals of fee awards under OCGA § 9-15-14 must proceed by discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10), and the plaintiffs did not follow that procedure.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed L. Lin Wood’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The underlying civil trial court entered a $9,661,177 judgment for the plaintiffs and granted a supersedeas bond on November 5, 2025. Wood filed a motion for reconsideration on November 12 and a notice of appeal on December 9, 2025. The Court held that the notice of appeal was untimely as to the November 5 order because it was filed 34 days later, and that the later denial of the reconsideration motion is not directly appealable and does not extend the appeal deadline.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Kreslyn Barron Odum’s application for discretionary appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of her motion to set aside an order requiring her to pay half of a guardian ad litem’s fees. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because the underlying custody case remains pending and the order is interlocutory. Odum failed to follow interlocutory appeal procedures, including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court, so the discretionary-appeal process could not cure that jurisdictional defect.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Brittany Jackson's appeal from a judgment in favor of Bay Street Homes arising from a dispossessory action because Jackson filed her notice of appeal 21 days after the trial court's order denying her motion for new trial, instead of within the seven-day deadline that applies to dispossessory cases. The court explained that although possession became moot, the underlying action remained a dispossessory proceeding seeking past-due rent, so the special seven-day appeal window under OCGA § 44-7-56 controlled. Because timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, the court lacked authority to hear the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Husband’s direct appeal from a final divorce judgment for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that appeals in divorce and related domestic relations matters must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review under OCGA § 5-6-35, and that compliance with that procedure is jurisdictional. Because Husband did not follow the required discretionary-appeal procedure, the Court of Appeals concluded it could not consider the appeal and dismissed the case.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals dismissed Nicole Potts' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Potts had challenged a municipal-court order that adopted a magistrate's decision dismissing a landlord's forcible entry and detainer action against her. The magistrate dismissed the action without prejudice, finding Potts' purported "lifelong lease" defective and that the landlord's notice to vacate was defective. The appellate court held the municipal order was not a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 because the dismissal without prejudice left the parties in the same position as before the suit and did not affect Potts' substantial rights.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissed Trumbull County Children Services Board’s petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition as moot. The Board had asked the court to force the juvenile judge to comply with the appellate mandate in In re A.W. (which returned legal custody of A.W. to the maternal aunt) and to bar the judge’s ex parte order granting the father temporary custody. After a pretrial conference the parties represented that the aunt now has legal and physical custody in accordance with the mandate and the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying the record, so the appellate court found the requested relief obtained and dismissed the petition.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissed Albert DiTomaso’s appeal because the trial court’s judgment was not a final, appealable order. DiTomaso was tried and convicted on six of eight indictment counts, but two counts (one OVI count and an assured-clear-distance minor misdemeanor) were not resolved in the record and were not presented to the jury. Because unresolved "hanging" charges remain, the appellate court concluded it lacks jurisdiction to review the convictions and therefore dismissed the appeal.

The City of Edinburg filed a petition for writ of mandamus claiming the trial court abused its discretion by freezing discovery deadlines. The city later moved to withdraw the petition because the parties reached an agreement about the disputed discovery, rendering the mandamus request moot. The court treated the withdrawal as a motion to dismiss, found the matter moot under controlling authority, and dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus.

The Court dismissed William Berry Waters III’s appeal because the notice of appeal was filed on his behalf by a non-lawyer and Waters failed to cure the deficiency by filing a signed amended notice after being notified. Texas law prohibits non-lawyers from representing others or preparing pleadings, and a notice of appeal filed in a representative capacity by a non-attorney is ineffective. The clerk repeatedly asked Waters to file a signed amended notice but he did not do so, so the court dismissed the appeal under its procedural rule allowing dismissal for failure to comply with rules or clerk notices.

The Court dismissed Practical Technology, Inc.'s interlocutory appeal because the notice of appeal and appellant's brief were signed only by a person who is not a licensed attorney. The same non-attorney had previously filed a mandamus petition in this Court and the Court had dismissed that petition for lack of an attorney appearance. The Court gave Practical Technology time to respond to the appellee's motion to dismiss and rejected a late-filed extension because it was submitted by the same non-attorney. Because no licensed attorney ever appeared and no cure was shown, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tenth Court of Appeals dismissed Thomas Dione Moore's petition seeking mandamus relief because the challenged district court (the 20th District Court of Milam County) lies outside the geographic jurisdiction of the Tenth Court. The court explained it lacks writ jurisdiction to issue mandamus against a court located in a different appellate district under the cited statutory provisions, and therefore the petition cannot proceed in this court. The opinion was delivered April 9, 2026.

The Tenth Appellate District of Texas dismissed Louis Benjamin Vargas's appeal from a municipal court judge's denial of a habeas corpus petition because the court lacked jurisdiction. Vargas had pleaded no contest to a speeding complaint, paid the fine and costs, and filed his appeal in this appellate court instead of the statutorily required county court at law. The Court explained that appellate review of municipal court judgments lies in the county court at law unless the fine exceeds $100 and the county court affirms or the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute, neither of which applied here.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Ethan Frederick Hill’s appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.072 because his notice of appeal was untimely. Hill filed a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal under Rule 306a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming late receipt of the trial court’s December 1, 2025 order. The court held the civil-rule extension does not apply to criminal appeals from article 11.072 denials, the applicable deadline was 30 days under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Hill’s notice was filed late, so the court lacked jurisdiction and denied the extension motion.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Adelide Perez Ybarra’s appeal of the denial of her petition for expunction because she failed to file the required docketing statement and failed to pay the $205 filing fee despite being notified twice and given deadlines. The clerk first warned her that both were due by March 2, 2026; after noncompliance the clerk extended a final deadline of March 16, 2026. Because neither requirement was satisfied, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to follow the clerk’s directives.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Johnny Lamonte Phillips’s appeal for want of prosecution because he failed to pay the required clerk’s record costs and filing fee and did not make payment arrangements or respond to the court’s notices. The clerk’s record was due December 22, 2025, but was not filed. The court notified Phillips in March 2026 about unpaid clerk’s-record costs and earlier instructed him in January and February 2026 to remit a $205 filing fee; he did not comply within the time allowed, so the court dismissed the appeal under its rules.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District granted an agreed motion to dismiss an appeal brought by Sandra Flores and Anita M. Flores against Propel Tax and Javier Hernandez. The parties told the court they resolved their dispute and asked for dismissal. The court granted the motion under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, dismissed the appeal, taxed the appellate costs to the appellants, and declined to consider any motion for rehearing because the appeal was dismissed at the parties' request.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District dismissed Genie Delia Cavazos’s pro se appeal for want of prosecution after she repeatedly failed to comply with the clerk’s requests to pay the filing fee and to cure defects in her notice of appeal. The court sent five notices between October 28, 2025 and March 19, 2026 but received no response. Because Cavazos did not diligently prosecute the appeal or follow procedural rules, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellee’s motion to dismiss as moot.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District dismissed Constance Benavides’s appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 of Cameron County because she failed to meet appellate procedural requirements. The clerk’s record was overdue, and Benavides did not file the required docketing statement or inform the court that she paid or arranged to pay the clerk’s fee or was entitled to proceed without payment. After notice and a court order giving her ten days to comply, she did not respond, so the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and a court order.

The First District of Texas dismissed appellant Dayanara Danae Baker’s attempted appeal of a 2010 prostitution conviction because the notice of appeal was filed fifteen years after judgment and the trial-court certification from 2010 stated she had no right to appeal. Baker, pro se, also sought appointment of counsel and asked the court to consider waiving fees to aid access to employment, housing, and records, but the court explained an untimely appeal is not a proper vehicle for fee relief. Because the court lacked jurisdiction over the belated appeal, the appeal and pending motions were dismissed as moot.

The Texas Department of Insurance filed an original proceeding in the Seventh Court of Appeals to challenge the denial of its motion to quash a subpoena in an underlying Lubbock County case. While the petition was pending, the Department and the plaintiff (Real Party in Interest, Traci Johnson) resolved their discovery dispute by a Rule 11 agreement, and the Department filed a notice that it intended to withdraw its petition. Because the parties settled and the relator withdrew its challenge, the court dismissed the Department's original proceeding without deciding the subpoena issue on the merits.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed a pro se appeal filed on behalf of corporate entities because a nonlawyer cannot represent entities in court. After notifying the parties that an attorney must represent the corporations, counsel who filed an amended notice of appeal withdrew and no new attorney entered an appearance or filed a brief. The court concluded the entities failed to comply with directives to obtain counsel and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to follow court orders.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed Scott Crow’s appeal from his 2015 guilty plea and twenty-year sentence for third-degree felony driving while intoxicated. Crow filed a second pro se notice of appeal nearly ten years after sentencing, which the court found untimely under the appellate rules. The court also relied on the trial-court certification showing this was a plea-bargain case in which Crow waived any right of appeal. Because the notice was untimely and the certification precludes an appeal, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal on April 9, 2026. Rush Truck Centers of Texas, L.P. initially appealed a trial-court judgment but later obtained full relief when the trial court granted its post-judgment omnibus motion and entered a take-nothing judgment; Rush Truck moved to dismiss its portion of the appeal, which the court granted. The court also dismissed Ronald Joe Andrus, Jr.’s portion of the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to follow court directives after his counsel did not respond to requests, failed to pay filing fees, and failed to request or pay for the clerk’s record.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed an interlocutory appeal by Robert Berleth and his firm challenging the trial court’s denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss under Texas Rule 91a. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because Berleth, a court‑appointed turnover receiver, is not a "governmental unit" under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §§ 51.014(a)(8) and 101.001(3), so he cannot bring an interlocutory appeal. The court relied on statutory text and precedent distinguishing uniquely governmental organs from privately appointed receivers whose authority is limited to satisfying a specific judgment.

The Court dismissed Bobbie Hall Wooldridge’s appeal of a guilty plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine because the trial court certified this was a plea-bargain case in which Wooldridge had no right to appeal. Wooldridge pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement and received the agreed three-year sentence. The appellate court found no statutory or procedural basis to continue the appeal, noting the certification was signed by the defendant, defense counsel, and the judge, and that the record supported the certification.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Jose Martin Islas's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Islas had previously been convicted and had his convictions affirmed. He filed a motion to correct a void sentence that the trial court denied on October 16, 2025, and a later motion for reconsideration denied December 5, 2025. Islas filed a notice of appeal on December 22, 2025, which the Court found untimely because Georgia law requires a notice of appeal within 30 days of the challenged order and a reconsideration motion does not extend that deadline or create a separate appealable order.