Court Opinion

ID: 3097767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:46:44.563834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:07.625408
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-11-00655-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

RONALD CHEVIS,                                                                Appellant,

                                           v.

SANDRA CHEVIS,                                       Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

              On Appeal from the 279th District Court
                   of Jefferson County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

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

      Appellant, Ronald Chevis, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed on

August 15, 2011, in cause no. F-208,017. Upon review of the documents before the

Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment dated August 15, 2011.

On December 15, 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 Jefferson County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no final judgment

has been entered 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
9th day of February, 2012.

                                             2