Ex Parte: Barry Wion

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 24, 2011
• Docket: 12-11-00224-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 12-11-00224-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS         

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

                                                                           §                   APPEAL FROM THE 349TH

EX PARTE:  

                                                                          §                    JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

BARRY WION                                                            

                                                                         §                     ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                  PER CURIAM

            On July 26, 2011, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying his motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc.  On July 28, 2011, this court notified Appellant, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.2, that the information received in this appeal does not contain a final judgment or other appealable order.  See Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990) (holding that order denying motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not appealable).  Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be dismissed if the information received in the appeal was not amended on or before August 29, 2011, to show the jurisdiction of this court. 

            On August 19, 2011, Appellant responded that the trial court’s order is final and appealable because it disposes of all issues and parties in the suit.  He responded further that the trial court’s docket sheet entry is sufficient to show that the order was signed.  However, these arguments and the authority Appellant cites do not address the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in Shadowbrook Apartments and do not show that this case is an exception to that holding.  Consequently, Appellant has not shown this court’s jurisdiction of the appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.1, 42.3.

Opinion delivered August 24, 2011.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)