Court Opinion

ID: 4642505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-12-14 08:17:25.667842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:00:33.493796
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-20-00420-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

ANGELIC ROMO,                                                                    Appellant,

                                              v.

SAMUEL SUAREZ,                                      Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes
              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

       Appellant Angelic Romo attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed on

October 7, 2020, granting appellee’s attorney’s motion to withdraw and to substitute

counsel. 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 fifteen 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. 1

       Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no

jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex.

2007); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Northeast Indep.

Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). 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).

                                                       NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                       Justice

Delivered and filed the
10th day of December, 2020.

       1Appellant has subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this matter under appellate
cause number 13-20-00440-CV, which remains pending with the Court.
                                                  2