Glenn Samuels v. Bexar County Sheriff-Narcotics

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: 04-25-00087-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00087-CV

Glenn SAMUELS, Appellant

v.

BEXAR COUNTY SHERIFF-NARCOTICS, Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024CI08343 Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 28, 2025

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

Appellant, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal stating his intent to appeal an October 25,

2025 order concerning a default judgment. The clerk’s record contains only what appears to be a

“judge’s note” filed on that date. “This court, however, has expressly held a judge’s handwritten

notes are for his or her own convenience and form no part of the record.” Vo v. Vo, No. 04-18-

00194-CV, 2018 WL 5808303, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 7, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 04-25-00087-CV

Generally, unless authorized by statute, “an appeal may be taken only from a final

judgment.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Moreover, the appellate

record does not contain a signed, written order. See Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co., 907 S.W.2d 495,

496 (Tex. 1995) (“The appellate timetable does not commence to run other than by a signed,

written order, even when the signing of such an order is purely ministerial”) (emphasis in

original); TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1 (starting appellate timetable from the date the judgment is signed).

On March 28, 2025, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should

not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s response, filed on March 31, 2025, does not

explain how this court has appellate jurisdiction.

The lack of a signed written judgment deprives this court of appellate jurisdiction.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3; Lehmann

v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d at 195; Ben E. Keith Co., 907 S.W.2d at 496.

-2-