Court Opinion

ID: 4456468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-11-16 03:12:56.41279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:31.420357
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-19-00483-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

JOSEPH J. ESTAPA JR.,                                                       Appellant,

                                           v.

JOSE LUIS RAMOS,                                    Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

              On appeal from the 93rd District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
             Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Perkes
                 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

      Appellant Joseph J. Estapa Jr. attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed

on October 2, 2019, in Cause No. C-1777-19-B. The notice of appeal states it is an

interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction and motion to set aside

an order of eviction and Rule 11 agreement. Upon review of the documents before the

Court, it appeared that there was no appealable order dated October 2, 2019.          On
October 9, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could

be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3.

Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date

of receipt of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant

failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

       The Hidalgo County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no order was

entered on October 2, 2019. In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have

jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute.

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.     Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).

                                                                 GREGORY T. PERKES
                                                                 Justice

Delivered and filed the
14th day of November, 2019.

                                              2