### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00466
- CV

Ken Paxton, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas, Appellant

v. William McManus, in his Official Capacity as Chief of San Antonio Police Department;

City of San An t onio; and Erik Walsh, in his Official Capacity as City Manager of City of San Antonio, Appellee s

FROM THE 345TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- GN
- 18
- 007133 , THE HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A f t e r the trial court granted the appellees ’ motion for partial summary judgment, appellant filed a motion in the trial court r equesting permission to file a n interlocutory a ppeal

. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 168 ( “ On a party ’ s motio n or on its own i nitiative, a tr i a l court may permit an appeal from an inter locutory order that is not otherwise appealab l e . . . . ” ) ; see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(d) (specif ying circumstances under which trial court can grant

w ritten permission to appeal otherwise unapp e a l able order )

. The trial court clerk subsequently forwarded the motion to th e Clerk of this Court and the matter was docketed as a pe tition for permis s ion to appeal. T ex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(f) ( stating that appellat e court may accept appeal p e r mitted by subsection (d) upon application for interl ocutory appeal explaining why appeal is warranted under s u bsection ( d ) ) ; s ee T ex. R. App. P. 28.3 (a) (providing that when2

trial court has permitted appeal from interlocutory order not otherwise appeal abl e , “ a party seeking to appeal must petition the court of appeals for permission to appeal ” )

.

Appellate courts only have jurisdiction to re view final judgmen ts and cert a in interlocutory orders ident ified by statute. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S. W.3d 19 1 , 195 (Tex. 2001) ; see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 51.012, .014

. Because the granting of a partial motion for s ummary judgment is not a final judgment and because it was unclear whether permission to appeal had been granted by the trial court , this Co u rt requested that appellant fi le a written response demonstrating this Court ’ s jurisdiction over this appeal. See Dr aper

v. Guernsey , No. 03

- 15

- 007 41

- CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS , at *2 (Tex. App.

— Austin Feb. 3, 2016, pet. denied) ( mem. op.) (concluding th at t rial court order per mitting “ an appeal from an order that is not otherwise appeala ble ” “ is a prerequisite to appellate jurisdict ion ” over permissive appeal ).

In response, a ppellant i nformed this Court that he never intended to file a petition for p e rmi s sive appeal in this Court

. See Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014( f ) ; Tex. R. App.
P . 28.3 (a), (b)

. In addition , a ppe llant ackno wledges that the summary - judgment order is not an appealable interlocutory order and that the trial court has denied h is mo t i on for a permissive appeal

. Because the appellant di d not obtain the trial court ’ s written permission to appeal , the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (a).3 ___________________________________ _______ Chari L. Kelly , Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly Dismissed for W ant of Jurisdict ion Filed: October 4, 2019