### NU M BER 13- 10- 0013 4-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ IN THE INTEREST OF K.B. K., CHILD

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On “Mo ti o n t o D is es ta b lis h P at er n ity .”

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d G arza Per Curia m M emor andum Opini on T hom as G. Krue ck has f iled a “Motion to Disestablish Pa ternity” wit h t his Court throug h w hic h he req uest s that thi s Cour t “i ss ue an order

to dis est abl is h pat er nity .” The mo tion was no t f iled in conju nction w ith a f inal judgme nt, o rder, or not ice of app eal, alt houg h Kr ueck

as ser ts that he has fil ed rele v ant mot ion s i n tr ial co u rtcause number 98- 2584- F in the 2 14th Di str ict C our t of N ueces C ounty , Tex as. Upo n recei pt of the moti on, t he C ler k o f this C our t not if ied Kr ueck

thathi s fil ing lacked a notice of

app eal an d an app eala ble order, so tha t step s could be taken to correct the d efect, if i t c oul d be done. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 37. 1, 42.3. The C ler k fur ther noti fied2

Kr ueck thatthe appeal woul d be dis mis sed if the defect was not c or re cte d after the ex pirati on of ten days from recei pt of the C our t’ s n oti ce. I n respon se, Kr ueck req uest ed a si xty-d a y e xt e n s io n o f t im e t o f il e h is re s p o n s e t o a ll o w h im t o “f in d , d ig e s ta n d fo ll o w . . . the T exas Rules of

Appe llate Proce dure .” The Cou rt , hav ing fully re v iewed and cons ide re d the document s h erein , c oncl udes that the mot ion fail s to inv oke our appell ate or or ig ina l jur is dicti on and is of the o pin ion that the c ause shoul d be dis mis sed. In t er ms of our

appel lat e j ur is dicti on, th e m oti on fil ed by Kr ueck fail s t o i ncl ude or referen ce an y

f inal judgme nt or ap pea lable o rder and fails to me et the requireme nts fo r a noti ce of appeal

. See gen erally T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.1. The Di str ict Cl er k of N ueces C ounty informe d us tha t the trial court record fails t o include a f inal judgme nt or no tice of app eal. In t er ms of appel lat e j ur is dicti on, a ppel lat e c our ts onl y hav e j ur is dictio n t o rev iew final jud g ments and c ertai n i nter loc utory o rd e rs i denti fied by st atute

. Leh m ann v

. Har -C on Cor p. , 39 S.W .3d 1 91, 1 95 ( Tex . 200 1)

. Mo re ov er , t he “ Mo ti on to D is est abl is h Pat er nity ” fails to meet the req uirements for a petit ion for

w ri t of mandamus under the appel lat e r ule s. See gen erally T EX . R. A PP . P. 52. Fur ther , an or ig ina l proceed ing m ustbe c ommenced before a n appel lat e c our t obt ain s jur is dicti on to g ra nt re li ef by moti on unde r the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re . See, e.g ., In re R am ir

ez , 133 S.W .3d 6 64, 6 64- 665 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, or ig. proceed ing ); In r

e K e l leh er, 99 9 S. W .2 d 51 , 5 2 (T e x. Ap p .–Am a rill o 19 9 9 , o rig. p ro ce e din g ); seeT EX . R. A PP . P. 5 2. 1, 5 2. 10

. U nt i l a n ap prop r i at e pe ti ti on i s fi l ed , there is no d is pute before t his C our t. See In r

e Kel leh er , 999 S.W .2d a t 52. Beca use Kr ueck

is n o t a ppeal ing a fina l jud g ment or othe r appeal abl e order , and3

becau se he has not filed a pe ti ti on for w ri t of m andamus in acc ordance w it h the appel lat e ru le s , we co n c lu d e we h a ve n o ju ri s d ic t io n t o c o n s id e r h is m o t io n t o d is e s t a b li s h p a t e rn it y. Acc ordin g ly , t his matte r is D ISM ISSE D FO R W ANT O F JU RI SD IC TION

. Al l pendi ng moti ons are D ISM ISSE D as moot.

PERC UR IAM
Del iv ered and filed the 27th day of Ma y , 201 0.