Court Opinion

ID: 4455708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-11-14 15:14:52.57317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:41.498019
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-19-00501-CV

                                  COURT OF APPEALS

                      THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

             IN THE INTEREST OF C. W. S., A CHILD
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 166th District Court
                    of Bexar County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

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

        Appellant, Craig Schiebel attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered on

August 13, 2019 in cause no. 2005-CI-13953. 1 Upon review of the documents before

the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment dated August 13,

2019. On October 15, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so

       1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio pursuant

to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
§ 73.001.
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.

       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). Appellant is seeking to appeal an “Order

on Amended Motion to Modify Prior Orders” which is a temporary order until final

modification and not authorized by statute. See Id.

       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).

                                                               NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                               Justice

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

                                             2