Court Opinion

ID: 3096375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:38:13.353291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:51.574652
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-12-00036-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

  IN THE INTEREST OF A.J.P., A.J.P., AND E.J.P., MINOR CHILDREN
____________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 398th District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

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

      Appellant, Sergio Lauro Perez, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment

entered by the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County in cause no. F-4786-05-I. Upon

review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable

judgment and that the notice of appeal did not comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure

25.1(d) and 9.5(e).

      On February 16, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared

that there was no final, appealable judgment, and that the notice of appeal failed to
comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d) and 9.5(e). See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.1(d), 9.5(e). Appellant was notified of these defects so that steps could be taken to

correct the defects, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was

advised that, if the defects were 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 has

been entered in trial court cause no. F-4786-05-I. 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 these defects 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
5th day of April, 2012.

                                            2