Court Opinion

ID: 9914580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-02 16:08:32.203164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:09.986849
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                     San Antonio, Texas
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                        No. 04-23-00552-CV

                             IN THE INTEREST OF P.M.M., a Child

                     From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 2021-CI-21699
                            Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 27, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

           In this cause, appellant pro se seeks to appeal the trial court’s interlocutory orders

dissolving his indigency status and ordering him to pay attorney’s fees. Appellant apparently relies

on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(g) as a basis for filing his interlocutory appeal. However,

Rule 145(g) does not independently authorize an interlocutory appeal. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(g)

(authorizing party contesting finding of non-indigency to “challenge the order by motion filed in

the court of appeals with jurisdiction over an appeal from the judgment in the case”) (emphasis

added). Moreover, after the filing of this appeal, the trial court entered a final judgment, and

appellant has directly appealed the merits in Cause No. 04-23-00840-CV. See Bonsmara Nat. Beef

Co., LLC v. Hart of Tex. Cattle Feeders, LLC, 603 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. 2020) (“When a trial
                                                                                     04-23-00552-CV

court renders a final judgment, the court’s interlocutory orders merge into the judgment and may

be challenged by appealing that judgment.”).

       On October 26, 2023, we ordered appellant to show cause why this cause should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond to our order. We accordingly dismiss

this cause for lack of jurisdiction. However, on September 6, 2023, appellant filed a brief that we

construe as a motion filed under Rule 145(g). In the interests of justice, we, therefore, direct the

Clerk to transfer to Cause No. 04-23-00840-CV (1) the clerk’s records, (2) the reporter’s record,

and (3) appellant’s September 6, 2023 motion for disposition pursuant to Rule 145(g).

                                                 PER CURIAM

                                                -2-