Pate v. State for the Protection of Aguilar, 03-25-00399-CV, February 20, 2026.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 of Williamson County
Synopsis
The Third Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal from a protective order case after the appellant failed to file an appellate brief or a motion for extension of time. Despite receiving a formal warning from the Clerk that the appeal was overdue and subject to dismissal, the appellant provided no response, leading the court to dismiss the matter for want of prosecution under Rule 42.3(b).
Relevance to Family Law
In the high-stakes environment of protective orders and family violence litigation, procedural discipline is as critical as the substantive evidence presented at trial. For family law practitioners, this case underscores that the appellate courts will not allow a cloud of litigation to hang over a protective order indefinitely if the appellant fails to prosecute the appeal. Whether you are seeking to vacate a Title 4 protective order or defending one, the strict adherence to briefing schedules is a jurisdictional-adjacent necessity; failure to comply results in the summary termination of the appeal, leaving the trial court’s findings—including potential findings of family violence that impact custody and possession—fully intact and unreviewable.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
This appeal arose from a protective order issued by the County Court at Law No. 4 of Williamson County against John Henry Pate, Jr. for the protection of Leigh Meredith Aguilar. Following the trial court’s judgment, Pate initiated an appeal with the Third Court of Appeals. The appellant’s brief was originally due on September 8, 2025. When the deadline passed without any filing, the Court took proactive measures on September 19, 2025, by sending a formal notice to Pate. This notice explicitly stated that the brief was overdue and that a failure to file a satisfactory response or the brief itself by September 29, 2025, would result in the dismissal of the appeal. Pate did not file a brief, a motion for extension of time, or any other response to the Court’s inquiry between the notice date and the final dismissal in February 2026.
Issues Decided
The Court considered a single procedural issue: whether an appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the appellant fails to file a brief or an extension motion after being provided with the requisite notice of delinquency.
Rules Applied
The Court relied upon Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b), which provides that an appellate court may dismiss an appeal on its own motion for want of prosecution. This rule requires that the parties be given ten days’ notice before such a dismissal is finalized, ensuring the appellant has a final opportunity to cure the defect.
Application
The Third Court of Appeals applied the procedural mandates of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to the appellant’s inaction. In the appellate process, the burden of moving the case forward rests solely on the appellant. Once the September 8 deadline passed, the Court provided the “warning shot” required by Rule 42.3. By waiting until February 20, 2026, to issue the dismissal, the Court provided Pate with months of additional time beyond the September 29 “cure” date. Because the record remained devoid of any attempt to explain the delay or request additional time, the Court concluded that the appellant had failed to prosecute the appeal with the diligence required by the law.
Holding
The Court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b). The Court noted that the appellant was given clear notice of the consequences of his inaction and failed to provide any response.
As a result of this holding, the appeal was terminated without a review of the merits. This dismissal effectively finalizes the trial court’s protective order, as the appellate court’s jurisdiction over the matter has been relinquished.
Practical Application
For the practitioner, this case is a reminder that the Third Court of Appeals is not an ombudsman for delinquent litigants. In a family law context, a dismissal for want of prosecution (DWOP) is a “quiet” win for the appellee. If you represent the appellee in a protective order appeal, your strategy should often involve disciplined silence; if the appellant misses their briefing deadline, the court’s internal processes will eventually trigger a notice that can lead to a dismissal without you ever having to bill the client for a responsive brief. For the appellant, this case highlights that even a simple motion for extension of time can preserve the right to be heard; silence is the only truly fatal mistake.
Checklists
Protecting the Appeal from DWOP
- Calendar the “Mailing” Dates: Do not just calendar the brief’s due date; calendar the 10-day notice window if you receive a delinquency notice from the Clerk.
- Verify E-Service Contact Information: Ensure that the lead attorney’s “primary” email in the e-filing system is monitored daily to avoid missing Rule 42.3 notices.
- Immediate Motion Practice: If a deadline is missed, file a Motion for Extension of Time immediately—even if the brief is not ready—to signal to the Court that the appeal has not been abandoned.
Appellee’s Strategy for Delinquent Appellants
- Monitor the Online Docket: Check the Texas Courts website every 15 days after the appellant’s brief is due to see if a “Brief Overdue” notice has been issued.
- Hold the Response: Do not begin drafting the Appellee’s Brief or filing motions to dismiss prematurely if the Court has already issued a Rule 42.3 notice; let the Court’s own clock do the work for you.
Citation
Pate v. State for the Protection of Aguilar, No. 03-25-00399-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 20, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~b8dbdb8e-4c2f-4d60-ab94-8bd5336751ef~~
Share this content: