Court Opinion

ID: 3205646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-05-20 23:15:07.846638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:55.340566
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-16-00212-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

VANESSA TIJERINA,                                                        Appellant,

                                         v.

DIANA CONDE,                                        Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 197th District Court
                   of Willacy County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

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

      Appellant, Vanessa Tijerina, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed

on March 23, 2016, denying her motion to recuse and disqualify the Honorable Migdalia

Lopez. 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 ten 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.

        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). An order denying a motion to recuse may

be reviewed only on appeal from a final judgment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(a). An

order denying a motion to disqualify may be reviewed by mandamus “and may be

appealed in accordance with other law.” See id. R. 18a(j)(2). Because there is no

“other law” allowing an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to disqualify in

a case such as this, the denial of the motion to disqualify may be reviewed on appeal

from the final judgment rendered in the cause. See id.; see also Gore v. Gore, No. 05-

13-01025-CV, 2014 WL 1018650, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 17, 2014, no pet.) (mem.

op.).

        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, 39 S.W.3d at 195; 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.         See generally TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j).

                                               2
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).

                                                        PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
19th day of May, 2016.

                                    3