Court Opinion

ID: 4149203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-03-01 02:14:58.943428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:07.008896
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-16-00586-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

                 EX PARTE ALFRED SCHUETZE
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 445th District Court
                  of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
            Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Longoria
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras

       Appellant, Alfred Schuetze, attempted to perfect an appeal from the trial court’s

October 5, 2016 order denying his motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment. Because

this denial is not an appealable order, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

       Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from

which this appeal was taken was not an appealable order. On November 4, 2016, 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. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected
within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be

dismissed. Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notice.

       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). In this regard, orders denying motions for

judgment nunc pro tunc are not subject to appeal. See Shadowbrook Apartments v.

Abu-Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam) (holding that an order denying

a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not appealable); see also In re Hernandez, No.

14-13-01038-CV, 2014 WL 6854621, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 4, 2014,

no pet.) (consolidated appeal & orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam) (“An order

denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not a final, appealable judgment.”).

       The Court, having fully reviewed and considered the documents herein, concludes

that the order appealed from fails to invoke our appellate jurisdiction and is of the opinion

that the cause should be dismissed. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). All other pending motions are likewise

DISMISSED.

                                                         DORI CONTRERAS
                                                         Justice

Delivered and filed the
23rd day of February, 2017.

                                             2