Court Opinion

ID: 2884907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 18:06:32.31209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:33.166886
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-00-0428-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 4, 2000

______________________________

ANTONIO SEPEDA,

Appellant

v.

VICTOR BROOKS, JUSTIN FORD, and JOHN W. ALLEN,

Appellees

_________________________________

FROM THE 223rd DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

NO. 31,480; HON. LEE WATERS, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and JOHNSON, JJ.

Antonio Sepeda appeals from an order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel.  The order in question did not finally dispose of all claims asserted against all parties, thus, it is interlocutory.  
See
 
North East Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex.1966)
 (holding that to be final, an order must dispose of all issues and parties in a case).   Indeed, the record indicates that the suit from which this appeal arose has been set for trial in November of 2000.   Furthermore, the interlocutory order in question is not one which the legislature has permitted to be appealed via section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  

Appellant was informed of the aforementioned circumstance on September 20, 2000 by letter from this Court.  Through that letter, he was also informed of the defect in jurisdiction and afforded ten days within which to explain why the cause should not be dismissed.  However, no reason obviating the defect in jurisdiction has been given.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.