in the Interest Of: M.A.A.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 27, 2017
Docket05-14-01180-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest Of: M.A.A. (in the Interest Of: M.A.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in the Interest Of: M.A.A., (Tex. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Order entered July 27, 2017

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01180-CV

IN RE M.A.A.

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 01-09-843

ORDER

Appellant Sherry Rhodes appealed an order affecting the parent child relationship. On

August 23, 2016, we issued our judgment affirming the trial court’s order. On January 3, 2017,

we denied Rhodes’s motion for en banc reconsideration. As a result, this Court’s plenary

jurisdiction over this appeal, including our jurisdiction over our own judgment and the trial court

order on appeal expired on February 2, 2017. As of that date, this Court has had no jurisdiction

to entertain any further challenges related to the trial court proceedings or the merits of this

appeal.

Rhodes subsequently filed a premature motion to stay the execution of our mandate and a

timely motion to extend the time to file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas

Supreme Court. On March 26, 2017, the Supreme Court denied Rhodes’s motion to extend the

time to file a petition for discretionary review. On June 13, 2017, Rhodes filed a motion to supplement the record, motion to dismiss

appeal, and motion to extend stay of mandate. In her motion, Rhodes raises various complaints

regarding our judgment, as well as the trial court’s judgment that was on appeal. Rhodes has not

shown, and does not contend, that she has filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United State

Supreme Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.2 (grounds for staying issuance of mandate).

Rhodes’s motion to stay issuance of the mandate is DENIED.

We have no jurisdiction to consider Rhodes’s other requests for relief. Rhodes has

exhausted her appellate remedies.

Rhodes’s remaining pending motions are DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

/Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in the Interest Of: M.A.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-maa-texapp-2017.