Court Opinion

ID: 4042251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-28 23:02:12.756669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:50:29.047087
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-15-00320-CV

                              COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

            IN THE MATTER OF JESSE (JESUS) SOLIZ
                   AND CHARLOTTE P. SOLIZ
____________________________________________________________

              On appeal from the 94th District Court
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION
              Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria
                    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       Appellant, Jesse (Jesus) Soliz, proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal

from an order entered by the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause

number 2013-FAM-2812-C. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared

that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. 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 this notice,
the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant failed to respond to the

Court’s notice.

       In the instant case, appellant seeks to appeal a final decree of divorce but has not

furnished us with a copy of the judgment subject to appeal. The clerk of the trial court

advises us that the trial court has not rendered a final judgment in this cause.

Accordingly, 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. See id. R. 42.3(a),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF JURISDICTION.

                                                 PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
17th day of September, 2015.

                                             2