Court Opinion

ID: 3103362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:28:21.772246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:33:09.138533
License: Public Domain

NUMBER
13-11-00231-CV
 
                                 COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                     THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________
 
SIX THOUSAND
FIFTY-NINE DOLLARS, 
UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,                                                   Appellant,
 
                                                             v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
 
                            On
appeal from the 37th District Court
                                         of
Bexar County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
 
                               MEMORANDUM
OPINION
 
     Before Chief
Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion
Per Curiam
 

Appellant,
Dennis Gay, attemped to perfect an appeal from a judgment signed on February
24, 2011, in cause no. 2011-CI-02296.  Upon review of the documents before the
Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment dated February
24, 2011.  On May 23, 2011, 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
Bexar County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no final judgment has
been signed in this case.  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). 
PER
CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 
21st day of July, 2011.