Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/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

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 15, 2021·No. 05-21-00017-CV·Published

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

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, (Tex. Ct. App. 2021).

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) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)