in the Interest of M.J.Y, E.T.Y, B.C.Y., V.C.Y., E.G.Y., R.F.Y., S.R.Y., D.A.Y., A.A.Y., X.I.Y., Children
This text of in the Interest of M.J.Y, E.T.Y, B.C.Y., V.C.Y., E.G.Y., R.F.Y., S.R.Y., D.A.Y., A.A.Y., X.I.Y., Children (in the Interest of M.J.Y, E.T.Y, B.C.Y., V.C.Y., E.G.Y., R.F.Y., S.R.Y., D.A.Y., A.A.Y., X.I.Y., 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.
Opinion
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 15, 2021
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00017-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF M.J.Y, E.T.Y, B.C.Y., V.C.Y., E.G.Y., R.F.Y., S.R.Y., D.A.Y., A.A.Y., AND X.I.Y., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296-52069-2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith Opinion by Justice Goldstein Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s decision
to deny appellant’s request for court-appointed counsel. We notified appellant that
it did not appear he was attempting to appeal from a final or otherwise appealable
order, and we requested appellant to file a response showing grounds to continue
this appeal. Appellant failed to respond to our request.
A party may only appeal from a final judgment or an interlocutory order
specifically made appealable by statute or rule. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39
S.W.3d 191, 195 & n.12 (Tex. 2001); see e.g. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
51.014 (listing appealable interlocutory orders). The denial of a request for court- appointed counsel is not a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order.
Matter of Marriage of Hernandez and McCreary, No. 12-17-00397-CV, 2018 WL
524864, *2 (Tex. App—Tyler Jan. 24, 2018, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.);
Hernandez v. Williams, 02-09-00220-CV, 2009 WL 2579578, at*1 (Tex. App—Fort
Worth Aug. 20, 2009, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(a), 42.2(f); Hernandez, 2018 WL 524864 at * 2; Hernandez, 2009 WL
2579578 at * 1.
/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
210017F.P05
–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF M.J.Y, On Appeal from the 296th Judicial E.T.Y, B.C.Y., V.C.Y., E.G.Y., District Court, Collin County, Texas R.F.Y., S.R.Y., D.A.Y., A.A.Y., and Trial Court Cause No. 296-52069- X.I.Y., CHILDREN 2020. Opinion delivered by Justice No. 05-21-00017-CV Goldstein. Justices Molberg and Smith participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered April 15, 2021
–3–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in the Interest of M.J.Y, E.T.Y, B.C.Y., V.C.Y., E.G.Y., R.F.Y., S.R.Y., D.A.Y., A.A.Y., X.I.Y., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-mjy-ety-bcy-vcy-egy-rfy-sry-texapp-2021.