With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (quoting Meshwert v. Meshwert, 549 S.W.2d 383, 384 (Tex.1977)). At the abatement hearing, Doe’s trial counsel testified that he did not practice primarily in the area of family law and that the reason he did not timely file the notice of appeal was that he did not know that the appeal was an accelerated one until more than 15 days after the trial court signed the judgment. This is a plausible statement that the failure to timely file the notice of appeal was the result of mistake “ ‘even though counsel ... may appear to have been lacking in that degree of diligence which careful practitioners normally exercise.’ ” See Dimotsis v. State Farm Lloyds, 966 S.W.2d 657, 657-58 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (quoting Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 668, 670 (Tex.1989)) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we conclude that Doe

A: holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal
B: holding that appellants counsels explanation of erroneous calculation of date for filing notice of appeal by adding 30 days to date trial court overruled motion for new trial was reasonable explanation for untimely filing notice of appeal
C: holding trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motion for attorneys fees despite filing of notice of appeal of final judgment
D: holding that an untimely postjudgment motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and that this court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal
B.