Court Opinion

ID: 3104679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:40:35.022148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:09.398358
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-11-00257-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

GABRIEL AGUILAR,                                                               Appellant,

                                             v.

JESUS HUMBERTO HERNANDEZ,                           Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

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

       Appellant, Gabriel Aguilar attemped to perfect an appeal from an order signed on

April 11, 2011, in cause no. CL-05-1249-E. Upon review of the documents before the

Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment dated April 11, 2011. On

April 26, 2011, 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

failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

       The Hidalgo County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no judgment was

entered on April 11, 2011. 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
9th day of June, 2011.

                                              2