Court Opinion

ID: 4450579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-10-26 02:16:41.330759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:40.002255
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-19-00444-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

ROBERT RENE YERENA,                                                          Appellant,

                                            v.

JUANA ULLOA A/K/A GUADALUPE YERENA,                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 92nd District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
             Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Perkes
               Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

       Appellant Robert Rene Yerena attempted to perfect an appeal from various orders

rendered in trial court cause number C-4570-17-A in the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo

County, Texas. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the

orders from which this appeal was taken were not final and appealable orders. 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. The Clerk advised appellant

that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if the defect was not corrected

within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice. Appellant failed to respond to the

Court’s notice.

       Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final

judgments. See City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann

v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).           Further, appellate courts have

jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides

for such an appeal. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex.

2007); see City of Watauga, 434 S.W.3d at 588.

       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. We DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a),(c). Pending motions, if any, are likewise dismissed.

                                                                 GINA M. BENAVIDES,
                                                                 Justice

Delivered and filed the
24th day of October, 2019.

                                              2