Brandon Williams v. Megan Nabila Mitchell

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
• Decided: February 19, 2026
• Docket: 03-26-00012-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-26-00012-CV

Brandon Williams, Appellant

v.

Megan Nabila Mitchell, Appellee

FROM THE 455TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-24-005735, THE HONORABLE CATHERINE A. MAUZY, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brandon Williams’ notice of appeal was filed in 2026, and by it he seeks to appeal

an August 2024 final judgment. This attempted appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Megan Mitchell initiated the underlying suit, seeking ultimately simply a

family-violence protective order against Williams. On August 16, 2024, an associate judge signed

the requested protective order, and later that same day, the presiding district-court judge signed

the protective order. Because the protective order disposed of the only claim in the suit—

Mitchell’s request for the protective order—the signed protective order was the final judgment in

the suit. See B.C. v. Rhodes, 116 S.W.3d 878, 881–82 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.); see also

Baker v. Bizzle, 687 S.W.3d 285, 291–92 (Tex. 2024) (presiding judge’s act of signing judgment

constitutes rendition of judgment). A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement for an appeal, and the

period during which parties must file their notice of appeal begins with the signing of the judgment

to be appealed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1, 26.1; Connally v. Mannas, No. 03-24-00167-CV, 2024

WL 3954529, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.). Even assuming that

Williams had the extended 90-day deadline from August 16, 2024, to file his notice of appeal under

Rule 26.1(a), he did not file a notice of appeal until January 7, 2026, and did not move for an

extension to file his notice of appeal until January 6, 2026, well beyond the 15-day window during

which we could have entertained an extension motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Houser v.

McElveen, 243 S.W.3d 646, 646 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam).

Our Clerk sent a letter to Williams identifying the jurisdictional problem and asking

him to respond with how our Court may exercise jurisdiction over this attempted appeal. More

than 10 days have elapsed since the letter without a response from Williams. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.3(a).

We dismiss this attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Ellis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: February 19, 2026