Jurisdiction is Not a Suggestion: How Late Criminal Appeals Secure ‘Final Conviction’ Status for Parental Termination Claims

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 07-26-00006-CR, February 06, 2026.

On appeal from the 242nd District Court of Hale County

Synopsis

The Seventh Court of Appeals dismissed this criminal appeal for want of jurisdiction because the appellant failed to file a notice of appeal within the mandatory thirty-day window prescribed by Rule 26.2(a)(1). Because the notice was filed nearly four years after sentencing and no motion for new trial was lodged, the appellate court lacked the authority to reach the merits of the conviction.

Relevance to Family Law

For the family law practitioner, the finality of a criminal conviction is often the lynchpin of a termination of parental rights suit under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(L) or (Q). This case underscores the strict jurisdictional barriers that prevent a criminal defendant from reviving an expired appellate clock. When a parent’s appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, as it was here, the “finality” of that conviction is solidified for the purposes of family court litigation, effectively closing the door on arguments that the conviction is still “under appeal” and therefore unusable as a predicate for termination.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Appellant Zachery Rene Lamas was convicted of sexual assault of a child and sentenced to seventeen years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court imposed the sentence on January 27, 2022. Under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Appellant had thirty days to file a notice of appeal, or ninety days if a motion for new trial had been timely filed. No motion for new trial was filed. Consequently, the deadline for Lamas to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals expired on February 28, 2022. Nearly four years later, on January 2, 2026, Lamas filed a pro se notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals issued a jurisdictional inquiry letter, giving the Appellant an opportunity to demonstrate how the court could exercise jurisdiction despite the significant delay, but the Appellant provided no response.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the Court of Appeals could exercise jurisdiction over a criminal appeal where the notice of appeal was filed years after the expiration of the statutory deadline set forth in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2.

Rules Applied

The court relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2(a)(1), which mandates that a notice of appeal be filed within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. It also applied Rule 21.4(a) regarding the timeline for motions for new trial. Most critically, the court cited Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012), for the principle that the timely filing of a written notice of appeal is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite. Without a timely notice, an appellate court has no power to act other than to dismiss the attempted appeal.

Application

The court’s application of the law was a straightforward chronological analysis. It calculated the expiration of the 30-day window from the date of sentencing—January 27, 2022—noting that the deadline landed on February 28, 2022. Because the notice was not filed until January 2026, the gap was not a matter of days or a mailing error, but a multi-year lapse. The court noted that it proactively offered the Appellant a chance to argue for jurisdiction via a “show cause” letter, but the lack of response left the court with no choice but to follow the mandates of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court further observed that while it lacked jurisdiction for a direct appeal, the Appellant’s only remaining avenue for an “out-of-time” appeal would be a collateral attack via a writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Because the notice of appeal was untimely, the court’s only authorized action was to dismiss the case.

The court further held that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is not a mere procedural technicality but a jurisdictional necessity. Absent compliance with Rule 26.2, the appellate court is never vested with the power to review the trial court’s judgment.

Practical Application

In the context of parental termination, specifically under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(L) (conviction for a crime involving sexual assault of a child), practitioners must prove the conviction is “final.” If you are representing a petitioner and the respondent-parent attempts to file a “shell” appeal years after the fact to stay the family law proceedings, this case provides the roadmap for why that appeal should be disregarded. You can move forward with the termination once the 30-day window passes without a notice of appeal, as any subsequent filing is a nullity for jurisdictional purposes. Conversely, if you represent the parent, you must pivot immediately to Article 11.07 habeas proceedings if you hope to challenge the conviction’s finality, as the direct appellate route is functionally dead.

Checklists

Determining “Finality” for Termination Grounds

• Confirm the Date of Sentencing: Obtain the Judgment of Conviction and check the date sentence was imposed in open court.
• Verify Post-Trial Motions: Check the criminal clerk’s file for a Motion for New Trial. (This extends the appellate deadline to 90 days).
• Monitor the 30/90 Day Window: If no notice of appeal is filed within the Rule 26.2 timeframe, the conviction is generally considered final for termination predicates.
• Scrutinize Late Notices: If a notice is filed after the deadline (like the 4-year gap in Lamas), treat it as a jurisdictional nullity unless and until a higher court grants an out-of-time appeal.

Defeating a Stay Request in Family Court

• Cite Castillo v. State: Argue that the late notice did not vest the appellate court with jurisdiction.
• Request Judicial Notice: Ask the family court to take judicial notice of the criminal docket showing the untimely filing.
• Highlight the Difference: Distinguish between a “pending” appeal (timely filed) and an “untimely” appeal (jurisdictionally defective), arguing the latter does not satisfy the “under appeal” exception to finality.

Citation

Lamas v. State, No. 07-26-00006-CR, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS ___ (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 6, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

View Full Opinion Here

Family Law Crossover

This ruling is a potent weapon for practitioners seeking to terminate the parental rights of a convicted felon. Under § 161.001(b)(1)(Q), termination is authorized if the parent is imprisoned and will not be eligible for parole for at least two years. Often, parents try to delay the “finality” of the conviction by filing pro se notices of appeal years into their sentence. Lamas confirms that such a tactic is jurisdictionally futile.

Strategic litigators can use a dismissal like this to move for a No-Evidence Summary Judgment on the issue of the parent’s “final conviction.” Once the Seventh Court of Appeals dismisses for want of jurisdiction, the conviction remains undisturbed and “final” for the purposes of the Family Code. It removes the uncertainty of a pending appeal and allows the family court to proceed to the “Best Interest” phase without the specter of a reversed conviction looming over the judgment.

~~26d5377d-49c1-4ae9-907e-c197522667de~~