Court Opinion

ID: 9379697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 08:09:33.415972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:03.769824
License: Public Domain

In The
                              Court of Appeals
                     Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                   No. 07-23-00050-CV

               MOHAMMMAD QUDDOOS MAHMOOD, APPELLANT

                                            V.

                        AMANDA SUE SLAHETKA, APPELLEE

                      On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                                 Williamson County, Texas
             Trial Court No. 19-3679-FC1, Honorable Daniel H. Mills, Presiding

                                    March 14, 2023
                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

      In September 2022, Appellant, Mohammad Quddoos Mahmood, filed a petition to

modify the parent-child relationship. His attorney later moved to withdraw as counsel and

the trial court granted the motion. Mahmood, now proceeding pro se, appeals from the
trial court’s Order on Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel. 1 We dismiss the appeal for want

of jurisdiction.

        Generally, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over final judgments that dispose

of all pending parties and claims. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.

2001). We have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if

a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–

53 (Tex. 1998). The trial court has not entered a final judgment in this case. And, an

order granting a motion to withdraw of counsel is not an appealable interlocutory order.

Davis v. Alcatel USA, Inc., No. 05-07-00060-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 1079, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Feb. 15, 2007, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)).

        By letter of February 8, 2023, we notified Mahmood that it did not appear that a

final judgment or appealable order had been issued by the trial court and directed him to

show how we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Mahmood has not filed a response or

had any further communication with this Court to date.

        Because Mahmood has not presented this Court with a final judgment or

appealable order, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a).

                                                                 Per Curiam

        Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the
        1

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.

                                                    2