Supreme Court of Texas Blog

No. 13-0277
Click for Official Page


The Court requested full merits briefing on February 21, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on October 3, 2014. File Closed

In the news...

Tracking 1 article about this case.

October 5, 2014

One new opinion, one revised opinion, and six grants [Oct. 3, 2014]

from SCOTXblog

This article also mentions 7 other cases.

The Court has issued opinions:


October 3, 2014


Per Curiam Opinion PDF


Court of Appeals

Appellate District:4th Court of Appeals
Outcome Below:Dismiss WOJ
COA Docket No.:04-12-00315-CV
Opinion Author:Honorable Marialyn Price Barnard

Trial Court

Trial Court:83rd District Court
County:Val Verde
Trial Judge:Honorable Robert C. Richardson
Trial Docket:27731

Entries on SCOTX Orders Lists

Docket Entries

Date Event Outcome  
2015-01-26 Case Stored  
  This case was waiting for a possible rehearing motion between November 14, 2014 and January 26, 2015.  
2014-11-14 Mandate issued  
2014-10-03 Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record Issued
2014-10-03 Opinion issued   Court of Appeals' judgment reversed and remanded to Court of Appeals
2014-10-03 Petition for Review granted under TRAP 59.1
2014-10-03 Petition for Review disposed Petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1
  This case was pending on merits briefs between April 28, 2014 and October 3, 2014.  
2014-04-28 Reply Brief (Petitioner)  
2014-04-14 Brief on the Merits (Respondent)  
2014-03-21 Brief on the Merits (Petitioner)  
2014-02-27 Case Record Filed  
2014-02-21 Record Requested in Petition for Review  
2014-02-21 Call received  
2014-02-21 Brief on the Merits Requested  
2014-01-22 Phone call from Clerk's Office  
  This case was waiting for a decision about briefing or a possible grant between November 4, 2013 and January 22, 2014.  
2013-11-04 Call received  
2013-09-27 Letter Received  
2013-08-23 Referral to Pro Bono Program - Letter sent to All Counsel of Record and Program Liason  
2013-07-17 Response Waiver filed  
2013-06-17 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response  
2013-05-14 Case forwarded to Court
2013-04-15 Phone call from Clerk's Office  
2013-04-12 Affidavit of Inability to Pay Court Costs  
2013-04-12 Petition for Review (Petitioner)  


Party Counsel Role
Grant, Jeffrey Alan
Mr. Jacques Lawrence De La Mota
Mr. Jeffrey Alan Grant
Pike-Grant, Dakota
Ms. Julie Michele Balovich
Mr. David B. Black
Mr. Robert W. Doggett

The court of appeals can look beyond a recital in the judgment when evaluating a restricted appeal

A party who does not participate in the trial court hearing that leads to the judgment being challenged can file a notice of restricted appeal for up to six months after judgment, as compared to the normal 30-day notice of appeal deadline. The wrinkle here is that the judgment recited that the party had appeared at the key hearing — while other aspects of the trial court record indicated that she had not.

The underlying dispute involves child custody. About two years after a divorce, the father moved to modify the court's custody order to appoint him sole managing conservator. A hearing was set for September 2011, and while the father appeared by telephone, the mother did not. The trial court did not enter an order until November 2011. That order, in turn, began with recitals stating that the hearing occurred in November 2011 and that the mother appeared.

The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals was not bound by the recital on the face of the judgment and, instead, should have considered the other indications in the record that — here, at least — conclusively established that the relevant hearing was the one that took place in September 2011.

The Court emphasized that this record was truly overwhelming:

Importantly, nothing in the record indicates the hearing took place in November 2011. And at least eight references in the record, including portions of the trial court’s docket sheet and the reporter’s record, conclusively confirm the hearing occurred in September 2011 and the petitioner did not participate.

When the record is less conclusive, a party may have a much more difficult time trying to challenge an incorrect recital in a judgment that threatens to deprive the appellate courts of jurisdiction.