Court Opinion

ID: 3086887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 02:59:33.961357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:27.892670
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-13-00585-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

         IN THE ESTATE OF RAQUEL E. WISE, DECEASED
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                  of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes
                    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, Nelda Wise Rodriguez, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order on

a judgment of inventory allegedly rendered on October 29, 2013, in trial court cause no.

2013-CPC-105. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there

was no final, appealable judgment dated October 29, 2013, and that it appeared that the

purported appeal had not been timely perfected insofar as the judgment of inventory in

the clerk’s record was rendered on September 18, 2013. On November 6, 2013, the

Clerk of this Court notified appellant of these defects so that steps could be taken to
correct the defects, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3.    Appellant was

advised that, if the defects were 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). The Court, having considered the

documents on file and appellant's failure to correct the defects 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).

Pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

                                                 PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
30th day of January, 2014.

                                             2