Cary Heath v. Tiffany Heath

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-25-00504-CV
___________________________

CARY HEATH, Appellant

V.

TIFFANY HEATH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 442nd District Court
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. 17-0564-442

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Cary Heath, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from a

December 4, 2019 final decree of divorce. Because Appellant did not file any post-

judgment motions or requests with the trial court, his notice of appeal was due

January 3, 2020. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (providing that, absent certain post-judgment

motions or requests, a “notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the

judgment is signed”); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b (stating that certain post-judgment

motions extend trial court’s plenary power). Appellant’s September 23, 2025 notice of

appeal is therefore untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and without

a timely filed notice of appeal or extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b), 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex.

1997); Howlett v. Tarrant Cnty., 301 S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009,

pet. denied) (op. on reh’g); see also Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005)

(“[P]ro se litigants are not exempt from the rules of procedure.”); Maddox v. Hutchens,

No. 2-02-159-CV, 2003 WL 21983260, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 21, 2003,

no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (holding pro se litigants to the same standards as

licensed attorneys).

We notified Appellant by letter of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over

this appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. We

warned Appellant that we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless he

2
filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(a), 44.3. In response, Appellant filed a letter asking us to “[p]lease withdraw[] the

appeal notice.” The letter does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, we dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: October 30, 2025

The day after we received Appellant’s response to our jurisdiction letter, we
1

received another letter from Appellant asserting that he had filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this court and that we had “mistaken [it] for a direct appeal.” We note
that we received Appellant’s petition on October 1, 2025, and sent him a notice of
noncompliance.

3