What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed within the 30-day time limit applicable to criminal appeals, and it denied the motion to extend time under the civil rule.

Why couldn't the appellant use the civil rule to extend time?

The court said Rule 306a of the civil procedure rules does not apply to appeals from denials of article 11.072 habeas petitions because those appeals are criminal proceedings governed by the appellate rules.

Who is affected by this decision?

Ethan Frederick Hill is directly affected because his appeal is dismissed; other litigants with similar habeas appeals should not rely on Rule 306a to extend appellate deadlines in criminal matters.

Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the trial court’s denial of the habeas petition remains in effect unless Hill pursues other available post-conviction remedies or a rehearing if procedurally permitted.

Can this dismissal be appealed further?

An appeal from this dismissal would generally require a timely motion or a different procedural vehicle; Hill should consult counsel promptly about any available remedies or motions for rehearing or discretionary review.

Ex Parte Ethan Frederick Hill v. the State of Texas

Docket 10-26-00119-CR

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Habeas CorpusDismissed

Filed: Apr 9, 2026 · 3 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Habeas Corpus
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 10-26-00119-CR

Appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.072, with appellant seeking an extension of time to file a notice of appeal under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a.

Summary

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.

Issues Decided

Whether Rule 306a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure can extend the appellate deadline for an appeal from the denial of an article 11.072 habeas corpus petition.
Whether the notice of appeal was timely under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure when the trial court’s judgment was entered on December 1, 2025.

Court's Reasoning

The court reasoned that appeals from denials of article 11.072 writs are criminal proceedings governed by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, not the civil rules, so Rule 306a does not apply. Under the applicable rule, a notice of appeal was required within 30 days of the trial court’s December 1, 2025 judgment. Because the notice of appeal was filed after that 30-day period, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the appeal and denied the motion to extend time.

Authorities Cited

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.072art. 11.072
Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1)
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 306aTEX. R. CIV. P. 306a

Parties

Appellant: Ethan Frederick Hill
Judge: Grant Kinsey
Judge: Steve Smith

Key Dates

trial court judgment signed: 2025-12-01
appellant filed motion to extend and notice of appeal: 2026-04-02
opinion delivered and filed: 2026-04-09

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult an attorney immediately
Talk with a criminal appeals attorney to evaluate remaining post-conviction options and whether any procedural steps (e.g., motion for rehearing or other filings) are available given the dismissal.
2
Evaluate alternative relief
Determine if other statutory remedies, such as a successive writ, habeas under other statutes, or federal habeas, are available and whether deadlines or procedural bars apply.
3
Preserve records and deadlines
Collect and preserve all trial-court filings and mailing/notice records to support any future claims about late or lack of notice that might affect timeliness arguments.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court dismissed the appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed within the 30-day time limit applicable to criminal appeals, and it denied the motion to extend time under the civil rule.
Why couldn't the appellant use the civil rule to extend time?: The court said Rule 306a of the civil procedure rules does not apply to appeals from denials of article 11.072 habeas petitions because those appeals are criminal proceedings governed by the appellate rules.
Who is affected by this decision?: Ethan Frederick Hill is directly affected because his appeal is dismissed; other litigants with similar habeas appeals should not rely on Rule 306a to extend appellate deadlines in criminal matters.
What happens next?: Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the trial court’s denial of the habeas petition remains in effect unless Hill pursues other available post-conviction remedies or a rehearing if procedurally permitted.
Can this dismissal be appealed further?: An appeal from this dismissal would generally require a timely motion or a different procedural vehicle; Hill should consult counsel promptly about any available remedies or motions for rehearing or discretionary review.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Court of Appeals
                   Tenth Appellate District of Texas

                               10-26-00119-CR


                       Ex parte Ethan Frederick Hill



                            On appeal from the
               440th District Court of Coryell County, Texas
                      Judge Grant Kinsey, presiding
                  Trial Court Cause No. DC-25-24345A

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On April 2, 2026, Appellant filed a motion to extend the time for filing a

notice of appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a along with a

notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of his writ of habeas corpus filed

pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.072. The trial court’s

order was signed on December 1, 2025.

      The rules of civil procedure do not apply to the denial of a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to article 11.072, as the appeal of a writ is a criminal

proceeding. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. arts. 11.072, §8; 44.02. Appellant

argues that he did not receive notice of the entry of the trial court’s judgment
until more than 90 days after the trial court’s judgment was signed and sought

relief from the trial court pursuant to Rule 306a of the Rules of Civil Procedure,

which allows appellate timetables to, in essence, be reset to the date when a

party receives notice of the entry of an appealable judgment. See TEX. R. CIV.

P. 306a. However, even if Appellant did not receive timely notice of the entry

of the trial court’s judgment, there is no comparable rule in criminal appeals

to Rule of Civil Procedure 306a. See Ex parte Tullett, No. 05-22-00845-CR,

2024 WL 357257, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 727 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2024,

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Peterson v. State, No. 14-

25-01110-CR, 2026 WL 806885, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 2612 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 24, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication); Giddens v. State, No. 06-08-00196-CR, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS

9896, 2008 WL 5627203, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 22, 2008, pet. ref'd)

(mem. op., not designated for publication). Therefore, the notice of appeal was

due within 30 days after the entry of the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.2(a)(1).

       The notice of appeal of the trial court’s judgment was not filed within 30

days of the entry of the judgment on December 1, 2025, and thus, it was not

timely filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Accordingly, this Court does not




Ex parte Ethan Frederick Hill                                             Page 2
have jurisdiction over this appeal and the appeal is dismissed. Appellant’s

motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal is denied.




                                             STEVE SMITH
                                             Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: April 9, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
       Justice Smith, and
       Justice Harris
Appeal dismissed;
Motion denied
Do not publish
CR25




Ex parte Ethan Frederick Hill                                       Page 3