Opinion
No. 05-08-01283-CV
Opinion issued October 30, 2008.
On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 05-1296-W.
Before Justices WRIGHT, LANG-MIERS, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Sherry Xing seeks to appeal the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights. The judgment was signed December 14, 2006. Therefore, appellant's notice of appeal was due by January 2, 2007. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(a) (Vernon 2002); Tex. R. App. P. 4.2(a), 26.1(b). Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on April 10, 2007. Although the document states it is a notice of restricted appeal, the document does not contain the statements required by rule of appellate procedure 25.1(d). See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(d)(7). Moreover, the judgment recites that appellant was present at trial and represented by counsel.
The notice of appeal and accompanying documents were not forwarded to this Court until September 25, 2008.
Because it appeared we did not have jurisdiction over the appeal, we directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing the jurisdictional question. In response, appellant filed a letter brief detailing appellees' activities rather than addressing the jurisdictional issue. Appellant presents no reason why the Court has jurisdiction over the appeal, and we conclude we have none.
Among other things, a notice of restricted appeal must state "the appellant is a party affected by the trial court's judgment but did not participate-either in person or through counsel-in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of." Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(a)(7) (emphasis added).
A restricted appeal is not available for an appellant who participated in the actual trial that led to rendition of the judgment. See Lawyers Lloyds of Tex. v. Webb, 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097-98 (Tex. 1941); Lake v. McCoy, 188 S.W.3d 376, 378 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.).
The trial court's judgment on its face reflects the case was called for a jury trial and that appellant was present in person and was represented by counsel. Because appellant participated in the actual trial that led to rendition of the judgment she now seeks to appeal, we conclude she is not entitled to a restricted appeal. See Webb, 152 S.W.2d at 1097-98; Lake, 188 S.W.3d at 378. Further, because appellant's April 10, 2007 notice of appeal is untimely as to the December 14, 2006 judgment, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.