Court Opinion

ID: 3092568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:08:51.010347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:16.425299
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-12-00477-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

HERMELINDA P. REYNA JR.,                                                APPELLANT,

                                           v.

STATE OF TEXAS ADULT PROTECTIVE
CUSTODY & REGULATORY,                             APPELLEE.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 319th District Court
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
              Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
                      Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, Hermelinda P. Reyna Jr. attemped to perfect an appeal from an order

issued by the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.         Upon review of the

documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment.

On July 25, 2012, 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 the notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant

has responded by filing an “Order of Appellate Granted by Judicare Record of Services

2009—Reversals of Fees, Fines, Services: of #95-6709-E.”

      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 defect 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).

                                                              PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
31st day of August, 2012.

                                            2