Court Opinion

ID: 9370251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-11 07:10:10.935095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:20.288286
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed February 9, 2023

                                       In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                    __________

                                 No. 11-23-00012-CV
                                     __________

                      ALLIE JARAMILLO, Appellant
                                        V.
          CITY OF ODESSA ANIMAL CONTROL, Appellee

                  On Appeal from the Odessa Municipal Court
                             Ector County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. 2022-001-2022-004

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Allie Jaramillo, Appellant, filed a pro se notice of appeal in this court on
January 18, 2023. In the notice of appeal, Appellant stated that she is appealing to
this court from an order purportedly issued by an associate judge of a municipal
court in Odessa in a matter that relates to several of Appellant’s dogs. When the
appeal was docketed in this court, we notified Appellant by letter that it did not
appear to this court that we had jurisdiction in this matter, and we requested that
Appellant file a response showing grounds to continue this appeal.
      Appellant filed a response but has not shown grounds upon which this appeal
may continue. In her response, Appellant asserts that this court “has jurisdiction to
determine” the following: (1) “the interlocutory order of a city court that renders
judgement outside of its own jurisdiction”; (2) “the interlocutory order of the city
Municipal court when the judgement ordered is a violation of the appellant’s Due
Process clause of the Constitutional Rights and presents a question of law that is
important to the jurisprudence of the state”; and (3) “the interlocutory order of a city
court that renders judgement that does not act accordingly to the state law.”
      We do not have appellate jurisdiction to review a judgment from a municipal
court. In re 2600 E. Amarillo Boulevard Gambling Paraphernalia & Proceeds,
No. 07-19-00259-CV, 2019 WL 3756913, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 8,
2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). The initial appeal from an order of a municipal court in
Odessa, Texas, lies not in this court of appeals but in “the county courts at law of
Ector County that have criminal appellate jurisdiction.” See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
§ 30.00771 (West 2004); see also id. § 30.00014 (West Supp. 2022) (relating to
appeals and the perfection of appeals from municipal court proceedings); § 30.00027
(relating to appeals to this court after the initial appeal to the county court at law).
      Furthermore, to the extent that Appellant is attempting to appeal from an
interlocutory order, we note that unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals
may be taken only from final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233
S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195
(Tex. 2001). An appeal to an intermediate court of appeals of the State of Texas,
such as this court, may be taken “from a final judgment of the district or county
court.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.012 (West 2015). Interlocutory
appeals to this court from certain orders “of a district court, county court at law,
statutory probate court, or county court” are permitted when specifically authorized
by statute. See id. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2022).
                                            2
      Finally, Appellant asserts that her appeal to this court is authorized by
Sections 822.0421, 822.0423, and 822.0424 of the Texas Health and Safety Code.
However, none of the sections of the Health and Safety Code referenced by
Appellant authorize a direct appeal to this court from a municipal court.
Section 822.0424 specifically provides as follows: “A party to an appeal under
Section 822.0421(d) or a hearing under Section 822.0423 may appeal the decision
to a county court or county court at law in the county in which the justice or
municipal court is located and is entitled to a jury trial on request.” TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE ANN. § 822.0424(a) (West 2017) (emphasis added); see State By &
Through City of Dallas v. Dallas Pets Alive, 566 S.W.3d 914, 918 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2018, pet. denied) (holding that the county court at law had jurisdiction to
hear an appeal of the municipal court’s decision regarding a dog that caused death
or serious bodily injury to a person).
      We conclude that Appellant’s notice of appeal—whether from a final or
interlocutory order of the municipal court—does not invoke this court’s appellate
jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
      We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                      PER CURIAM

February 9, 2023
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                           3