In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-23-00192-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022-001468-2

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

DELORIS PHILLIPS, Appellant

V.

SUGAR CREEK APARTMENTS, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In December 2022, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of

Appellant Deloris Phillips. See Phillips v. Sugar Creek Apartments, No. 02-23-00107-CV, 

2023 WL 3643674, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 25, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. 

op.). Several months later—after the trial court’s plenary power had expired1—

Appellant filed a post-judgment motion related to preservation of the record, then she 

attempted to appeal from the corresponding order denying her motions. Id. Because

the order was not appealable, we dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Id. 

Now, Appellant attempts to appeal from two new post-judgment orders:

2

(1) an order denying her motions to appoint counsel and a special master, and (2) an 

order denying her motion to amend the judgment. Again, these orders are not 

appealable. 

“Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appellate courts only have 

jurisdiction to review final judgments.” Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 

S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); see Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195, 205

1“When . . . an order or judgment is rendered by a trial court after its plenary 

power has expired,” even if that order or judgment is appealable, “an appellate court’s 

jurisdiction is limited to setting aside the order or judgment and dismissing the appeal 

for want of jurisdiction.” Haider v. Associated Props., L.P., No. 02-21-00181-CV, 2022 

WL 4373605, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 22, 2022, no pet.) (per curiam) 

(mem. op.). 

2The two post-judgment orders were signed in June 2023, after we handed 

down our opinion in Phillips. See 2023 WL 3643674, at *1 (reflecting date of May 25, 

2023).
3

(Tex. 2001). No statute authorizes an appeal from an order denying a motion to 

amend a judgment, denying a motion to appoint counsel, or denying a motion to 

appoint a special master. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a); Regalado 

v. Securus Techs., No. 02-23-00089-CV, 2023 WL 3370727, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth May 11, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting order denying motion to appoint

counsel is not appealable). And such orders are not final judgments either. See Bella 

Palma, LLC v. Young, 601 S.W.3d 799, 801 (Tex. 2020) (“[A] judgment is final either if 

‘it actually disposes of every pending claim and party’ or ‘it clearly and unequivocally 

states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.’” (emphasis altered) (quoting

Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205)).

Accordingly, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction 

over this appeal and warned that we would dismiss the appeal unless, within ten days,

she showed grounds for continuing it. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. More than a 

month has passed, and we have not received a response. 

We therefore dismiss Appellant’s attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice

Delivered: July 13, 2023