Court Filings

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas dismissed James Kristopher Limon's appeal for want of prosecution. Limon failed to file his brief by the March 21, 2026 deadline, did not request an extension, and did not comply with the clerk's ten-day notice. Applying Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b), the court dismissed the appeal. The opinion is a short memorandum concluding dismissal is warranted where a party fails to prosecute and does not seek an extension after notice.

The Texas Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child, T.C.-J., after the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services removed the child due to suspected prenatal and ongoing methamphetamine exposure. The jury found statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The appellate court rejected Mother’s challenges because she failed to preserve complaints about the sufficiency of the best-interest evidence and about admission of prior Department history by not making the required trial objections or motions.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District conditionally granted mandamus relief to Heather Zermeno, who asked the court to vacate a temporary order appointing her and her husband joint managing conservators in their divorce case. The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by appointing joint managing conservators despite credible evidence that the father committed family violence within two years of the divorce filing, which the Family Code prohibits for joint conservatorship. The appellate court ordered the trial judge to vacate the temporary joint-managing-conservator order and review conservatorship consistent with the statute.

The Court of Appeals (Seventh District) granted the appellants' unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of their appeal from an Agreed Final Judgment in the probate matter Estate of Eliot Carmi. The court found the motion complied with the appellate rule, that dismissal would not prejudice any party, and no decision had been issued, so the appeal was dismissed. Because the motion did not allocate costs, the court taxed appellate costs against the appellants and declined to entertain a motion for rehearing, issuing its mandate immediately.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed Logan Tyler Blanton’s sentences after he pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. Blanton argued the trial court abused its discretion by imposing concurrent 30-year terms without adequately considering his intellectual and psychological limitations, low risk of reoffending, and compliance with bond. The court held Blanton failed to preserve these complaints because he did not make timely, specific objections or file a motion for new trial, and noted that the sentences fall within the statutory punishment range.

The Court of Appeals of the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court judgments convicting Jarod Dajon Howell of four counts of possession with intent to deliver various controlled substances. Howell was sentenced to concurrent terms (42 years on two counts, 35 years on two counts). Appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous. The court independently reviewed the record, found no non-frivolous issues preserved for appeal, granted counsel’s motion, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.

The court affirmed a default final order terminating or modifying parental rights after Mother obtained substituted service and a default hearing while Father did not appear. Father filed a restricted appeal arguing substituted service and service returns were defective, certain certificates were filed prematurely, and the clerk failed to send notice of judgment. The court concluded Father met the procedural requirements for a restricted appeal, found his briefing on several points inadequate, and determined nothing in the record showed error on its face; therefore the trial court’s default final order was affirmed.

The Court of Appeals (Eighth District, El Paso) dismissed Ernest Garcia’s appeal from a December 4, 2025 judgment because his March 5, 2026 notice of appeal was untimely and he failed to provide a required reasonable explanation or file a motion for extension of time after the court ordered him to do so. The court concluded the late notice could only be excused by an implied extension under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3 if Garcia supplied a reasonable explanation, which he did not, so the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal and dismissed it under Rule 42.3(a).

The El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for PlainsCapital Bank in a trespass-to-try-title dispute. Appellants C.V.P.G. Family Trust and its trustee claimed ownership as successors to heirs of Joaquin Chapa, but PlainsCapital relied on a 2018 final judgment from a previous suit that adjudicated mineral title and declared hundreds of named and unknown Chapa heirs to have no ownership. The court held PlainsCapital met its burden to show a final judgment and that Appellants failed to raise a genuine fact issue that the prior judgment was void for lack of proper service or that C.V.P.G. lacked privity with the prior defendants.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant Lauro Eliud Salinas’s conviction and sentence for third-degree assault by impeding breath or circulation. Salinas appealed only the trial court’s refusal to redact a portion of a 911 call in which the caller said Salinas left the scene with a gun. The court held the statement was relevant contextual evidence explaining why witnesses called 911, was probative of consciousness of guilt and Salinas’s state of mind, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court therefore found no abuse of discretion in admitting the recording and affirmed the judgment.

The Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth considered Elizabeth Case’s original petition for a writ of mandamus and an emergency motion seeking relief from the 393rd District Court of Denton County (trial court no. 25-3863-393). The appellate court reviewed the request and denied both the petition and the emergency motion in a per curiam memorandum opinion delivered April 15, 2026. The court provided no extended written reasoning in the memorandum opinion beyond the denial.

The Stonewater Homeowners Association sued Luther and Laticia Evans for unpaid HOA fees. The parties presented an agreed judgment to the trial court, but at a hearing the Evanses (pro se) disavowed some terms, and the court orally modified the proposed agreement (reducing attorney’s fees, lowering interest, and striking foreclosure language) before signing the judgment. The HOA later filed a motion for new trial complaining the court lacked authority to alter the agreed judgment. The appeals court held the trial court acted within its authority because the modifications were made in open court after the Evanses did not accept the original terms and the HOA did not pursue separate enforcement remedies.

The State filed five related appeals from criminal cases involving Brent William Curry. The court granted the State's motion to consolidate the appeals, ordered the issues and records from four appeals merged into cause number 03-26-00312-CR, and dismissed the four now-duplicative docketed appeals. The consolidated appeal will proceed under cause number 03-26-00312-CR. The court cited prior practice in Reece v. State and explained that the trial court had already effectively consolidated the matters by taking judicial notice of related docket documents.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Tyler Andrew Montoya for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. Montoya argued the trial court erred by admitting a video of his police interview without Miranda warnings and by denying his motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held the interview was noncustodial because Montoya came voluntarily, was told he could leave, was not restrained, and the questioning was not the functional equivalent of an arrest. The court also found no reasonable probability counsel’s choices altered the guilty verdict.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Ricardo Isaac Alonso’s conviction for deadly conduct, a Class A misdemeanor, after a jury found him guilty of the lesser-included offense following a collision while he was fleeing law enforcement. Alonso argued the evidence was insufficient because the complainant’s vehicle, with bright lights, may have caused the crash. The court applied the standard that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, upheld the jury’s credibility determinations, and found the combined evidence supported a reasonable inference that Alonso recklessly endangered the victim by driving into oncoming traffic while evading officers.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Patrick Minor’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Minor sought to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for default judgment, but the appellate court concluded such a denial is an interlocutory order not immediately appealable. The court also noted the clerk’s record did not include an order denying the motion, and that Minor failed to respond to an order to show cause about jurisdiction. Because the appeal was from a non-appealable interlocutory ruling and procedural requirements were not met, the court dismissed the appeal.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Patrick Minor's appeal challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for a default judgment for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that denials of default judgments are ordinarily interlocutory and not appealable before entry of a final judgment. The court ordered Minor to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed; he did not respond, so the court dismissed the appeal. The decision rests on Texas law that interlocutory orders denying default judgment cannot be appealed until the underlying case is finally resolved.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Latoya Lavasiee Hopkins’s appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County for want of prosecution because she repeatedly failed to file her appellate brief or request extensions despite notices and a court order. The appellate court gave deadlines and warnings under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure but Hopkins did not respond. Because she did not comply with the court’s order to file a brief by the specified date, the court exercised its authority to dismiss the appeal.

The court dismissed an appeal by Ivie Fenoi-Lynch for lack of jurisdiction. Fenoi-Lynch filed a notice of appeal from a justice court judgment, but the appellate record shows the case continued in the county court at law and no final judgment was signed by that county court. The Fourth Court of Appeals explained it only has jurisdiction over appeals from district or county courts in its district and only over final judgments; a notice of appeal from a justice court does not invoke this court’s jurisdiction. Fenoi-Lynch’s response to a show-cause order did not cure the jurisdictional defect.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed an attempted appeal in a child-support modification case for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant filed a notice of appeal after the trial court had entered and then vacated an order dismissing his motion and granted a new trial date; no final, signed order was in the clerk’s record. The appellate court warned the appellant to show cause and to file any supplemental clerk’s record by a deadline, but the appellant did not respond. Because there was no final judgment or appealable order, the court dismissed the appeal.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights to four children. The Department had filed for termination after repeated removals tied to Mother’s chronic methamphetamine use and related instability, including leaving a child in a home with a person against whom a protective order had been obtained. The appellate court found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support statutory grounds (D) and (E) — that Mother’s conduct and the children’s environment endangered their physical and emotional well‑being — and also held termination was in the children’s best interests based on the children’s repeated disruptions, their expressed desire to remain with relatives, and the relatives’ ability to provide permanency.

The Fourth Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Omar Elizondo, Ovidio Elizondo, and Dr. Anthony Cynthia Elizondo Aradillas. The petition and related motions (an emergency motion for temporary relief and a motion for expedited consideration) were filed March 24, 2026. After review, the court concluded the relators did not show entitlement to the extraordinary relief requested and therefore denied the mandamus petition; the emergency and expedited motions were denied as moot.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied James McCoy's petition for a writ of mandamus filed April 6, 2026, seeking to compel action in an underlying Bexar County district-court case. The court reviewed McCoy's petition and motions and concluded he did not meet the legal standard for mandamus relief under Texas appellate rules. As a result, the petition is denied and McCoy's ancillary motions (to proceed in forma pauperis and to accept a single copy of pleadings) were denied as moot.

The Fourth Court of Appeals conditionally granted EOG Resources’ petition for a writ of mandamus overturning a trial-court discovery order that compelled production of five documents (items 3, 4, 5, 10, and 15) from EOG’s privilege log. After in camera review, the appellate court held EOG established a prima facie attorney-client privilege claim by producing a privilege log, affidavits, and the documents for review, and Broadway failed to show EOG waived the privilege either by voluntary disclosure or by offensive use. Because disclosure of privileged communications cannot be undone on appeal, mandamus relief was appropriate and the trial court was ordered to vacate its production order.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by AGON4, LLC and Texas Premium Beverage Corp. The relators sought to compel action in an underlying probate-court case but failed to show entitlement to extraordinary relief under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the court found the petition insufficient, it denied the writ and dismissed as moot the relators' separate motion for temporary relief (a stay of the underlying proceedings). No further reasoning beyond the procedural insufficiency is provided.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Guy Dean Peele’s conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact. Peele was tried by jury after a 2021 incident in which the complainant, then 14, accused him of touching her breasts while riding a four-wheeler and making sexually explicit remarks. On appeal Peele challenged sufficiency of the evidence, several evidentiary rulings, and the State’s closing argument. The court found S.S.’s testimony sufficient to support the verdict, held any hearsay error harmless because S.S. later testified, and deemed the remainder of Peele’s complaints unpreserved for appellate review.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed appellant Giovani Aveleno Kitts’s criminal appeal after he filed a motion to dismiss that complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). The motion was signed by Kitts and his counsel, and the court granted it, ending appellate review. The opinion is a short per curiam dismissal with no discussion of the merits and is not for publication.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying appellant George Michael Welch attorney’s fees. Welch sold property to Felix and Summerlyn Lopez under an owner-financed contract. The Lopezes missed a May 1, 2023 payment but attempted to tender payment within the contract’s 91-day cure period; Welch rejected the tender and filed for foreclosure. The trial court found Welch prematurely sought foreclosure, unjustifiably refused payment, and reinstated the note upon payment of $22,221.92, denying fees because Welch was not the prevailing party. The appeals court held a temporary injunction and reinstatement did not confer prevailing-party status under section 38.001.

The Fourth Court of Appeals granted the parties' joint motion to set aside the trial court's final judgment and remanded the case for entry of a judgment consistent with the parties' settlement agreement. The appellate court vacated the existing judgment without addressing the merits and directed the trial court to render the agreed judgment. Because the settlement did not allocate appellate costs, the court taxed costs of appeal against the appellants.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed EFT Express SA de CV's appeal from a Webb County district court for want of prosecution because the clerk's record was not filed and the appellant failed to pay the fee required for preparing the record. The appellate court notified the appellant and ordered a written explanation, but the appellant did not respond by the deadline. Citing the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court dismissed the appeal and taxed appellate costs against the appellant.