in the Interest of A. J. P., A. J. P. & E. J. P., Minor Children

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of A. J. P., A. J. P. & E. J. P., Minor Children

DecidedApril 5, 2012

Docket13-12-00036-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of A. J. P., A. J. P. & E. J. P., Minor Children (in the Interest of A. J. P., A. J. P. & E. J. P., Minor Children) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

in the Interest of A. J. P., A. J. P. & E. J. P., Minor Children, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-12-00036-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.J.P., A.J.P., AND E.J.P., MINOR CHILDREN ____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Sergio Lauro Perez, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment

entered by the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County in cause no. F-4786-05-I. Upon

review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable

judgment and that the notice of appeal did not comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure

25.1(d) and 9.5(e).

On February 16, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared

that there was no final, appealable judgment, and that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d) and 9.5(e). See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.1(d), 9.5(e). Appellant was notified of these defects so that steps could be taken to

correct the defects, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was

advised that, if the defects were not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of

the notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant failed to

respond to the Court=s notice.

The Hidalgo County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no judgment has

been entered in trial court cause no. F-4786-05-I. In terms of appellate jurisdiction,

appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory

orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.

2001).

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to

correct these defects in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 5th day of April, 2012.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI