Court Opinion

ID: 3103365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:28:23.114306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:18:57.974520
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-11-00231-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

SIX THOUSAND FIFTY-NINE DOLLARS,
UNITED STATES CURRENCY,                                                    Appellant,

                                          v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

              On appeal from the 37th District Court
                    of Bexar County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
                  Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, Dennis Gay, attemped to perfect an appeal from a judgment signed on

February 24, 2011, in cause no. 2011-CI-02296. Upon review of the documents before

the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment dated February 24,

2011. On May 23, 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 Bexar County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no final judgment has

been signed in this case. 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
21st day of July, 2011.

                                              2