Court Opinion

ID: 9949215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-09 18:12:09.050967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:11.596485
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00301-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ROY J. ELIZONDO III,                                                        Appellant,

                                               v.

ANDREW SMALLBONE,                                                            Appellee.

                   On appeal from the 148th District Court
                         of Nueces County, Texas.

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

                   Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
                   Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

      On August 29, 2023, this Court issued a memorandum opinion dismissing this

appeal for want of jurisdiction on grounds that the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

See Elizondo v. Smallbone, No. 13-23-00301-CV, 2023 WL 5541118, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 29, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). By order issued on
 September 6, 2023, we withdrew our memorandum opinion and accompanying judgment

 in the interests of justice. In short, we determined that the viability of the appeal was

 related to a petition for writ of mandamus filed by appellant in our appellate cause number

 13-23-00376-CV.

        On February 9, 2024, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that

 there was no final, appealable order in this appellate cause number. See TEX. R. APP. P.

 42.3. The Clerk informed appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if this defect was

 not cured within ten days. Appellant did not respond to the Clerk’s notice or otherwise

 correct the defect in the appeal. See id. R. 42.3(a), (c).

        By separate memorandum opinion issued in the petition for writ of mandamus, we

 have determined that the trial court has not issued a final judgment or an appealable

 interlocutory order, and thus the trial court retains jurisdiction over the underlying case.

 See In re Elizondo, No. 13-23-00376-CV, 2024 WL _____, at *__ (Tex. App.—Corpus

 Christi–Edinburg Mar. 7, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we dismiss this

 appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                L. ARON PEÑA JR.
                                                                Justice

Delivered and filed on the
7th day of March, 2024.

                                               2