Court Opinion

ID: 4097224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-11-10 15:03:54.45843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:29.150991
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-16-00424-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

              IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.S., A CHILD
____________________________________________________________

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

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

       Appellant, Lindsey Salas, attempts to appeal an order of enforcement by contempt

and suspension of commitment for failing to provide possession and access to minor

child, L.L.S.   The order provides for commitment for a period of eighteen months,

suspended, and awards appellee Robert Salas the amount of $11,200.00 for attorney’s

fees, expenses, and costs.

       Appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and specific

types of interlocutory orders designated by the legislature as appealable. Lehmann v.
Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

ANN. § 51.014 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). A judgment is final and appealable

if it disposes of all parties and all issues.    Lehmann, 39 S.W.2d at 195.        Without

affirmative statutory authority to hear an interlocutory appeal, this court is without

jurisdiction. Id.

       The order issued by the trial court was not a final, appealable judgment.

Additionally, the order held appellant in contempt and this court does not have jurisdiction

to review contempt orders by direct appeal. See Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655,

655 (Tex. 1985); Tracy v. Tracy, 219 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.);

In re B.C.C., 187 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, no pet.). Contempt orders

may be reviewed only by an application for a writ of habeas corpus, if the contemnor has

been confined, or by a petition for a writ of mandamus, if the contemnor has not been

confined. See Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 962 (Tex. 1995); Ex parte Williams,

690 S.W.2d 243, 243 (Tex. 1985); Tracy, 219 S.W.3d at 290.

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the

opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the

appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a), (c).

                                                 PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed this the
10th day of November, 2016.

                                             2