Elton Ortiz v. Zonia Scott

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 26, 2005
• Docket: 07-05-00378-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-05-0378-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 26, 2005

______________________________

ELTON ORTIZ,

Appellant

v.

ZONIA SCOTT,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT, PRECINCT 1 OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 25,515; HON. JIM TIPTON, PRESIDING _______________________________

Memorandum Dismissal

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Elton Ortiz appeals to this court from an order of dismissal dismissing his suit initiated in the Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct No. 1, Potter County. A court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from a justice court. Tejas Elevator Co. v. Concord Elevator, Inc., 982 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.). Instead, jurisdiction lay in either a county or district court depending upon whether the civil jurisdiction of the county court is transferred to a district court. Id.; accord, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.001(a) & (b) (Vernon 1997). Or, appeal may be had to a county court at law. See Tex. Gov. Code Ann. 25.003(a) (Vernon 2004) (stating that a county court at law has jurisdiction over all causes and proceedings civil and criminal, original and appellate, prescribed by law).

Lacking jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice

The Court of Criminal Appeals, in Williams v. State, 780 S.W.2d 802, 803 (Tex. Crim. App.1989), held that "by entering an order merely abating an appeal a court of appeals does not 'decide a case,'" therefore, it is an interlocutory order which is not final nor appealable. The trial court's findings are a result of the abatement hearing and address matters directed by this court. It, too, does not "decide" the case and therefore is interlocutory and non-appealable.

Accordingly, we dismiss appellant's appeal from the trial court's findings issued from the November 6, 2006 abatement hearing.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.