Ex Parte Ethan Frederick Hill v. the State of Texas
This text of Ex Parte Ethan Frederick Hill v. the State of Texas (Ex Parte Ethan Frederick Hill v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ex Parte Ethan Frederick Hill v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-ethan-frederick-hill-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp10-2026.