Court Opinion

ID: 3104263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:37:20.623085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:40.122898
License: Public Domain

NUMBER
13-11-00152-CV
 
                                 COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                     THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________
 
BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE,
                                                     Appellant,
 
                                                             v.
 
MR. DAVID SWEETIN,
ASST. WARDEN 
RICHARD GUNNELS,
CHIEF DIVISION 
COUNSEL (FBI) AND MR.
WILLIAM D. HAMAN,                     Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
 
                           On
appeal from the 130th District Court
                                     of
Matagorda County, Texas
____________________________________________________________
 
                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
 Before Chief Justice
Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion
Per Curiam
 

Appellant,
Barry Wayne Minnfee, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by
the 130th District Court of Matagorda, County, Texas, in cause no. 11-H-0222-C.  Upon review of the
documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no 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 has responded that he is appealing from an order dated
April 5, 2011.  
The
District Clerk of Matagorda County informed us that the trial court record
fails to include an order dated April 5, 2011, or a final judgment.  The Court,
having fully reviewed and considered the documents herein, concludes that because
there is no final or appealable order that invokes our appellate jurisdiction, the
cause should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the appeal is
hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a),(c).  Any pending motions are
DISMISSED AS MOOT.  
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
30th day of June, 2011.