Court Opinion

ID: 3104270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:37:25.38445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:00.892063
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.

                                             2