Julio Cesar Martinez v. Sandra De La Cerda

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 29, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00365-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00365-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

JULIO CESAR MARTINEZ, Appellant,

v.

SANDRA DE LA CERDA, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE 206TH DISTRICT COURT OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On July 17, 2024, appellant

attempted to appeal the trial court’s order of enforcement by contempt entered on May

16, 2024. On July 24, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appears the

order he was attempting to appeal was unappealable. Appellant has failed to cure the

defective notice of appeal and has not otherwise responded to the clerk’s notice. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears that the order from

which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. “[A]n order or judgment is

not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and

party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and

all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Furthermore,

orders of enforcement, not involving confinement, are not reviewable on direct appeal.

See In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

(explaining that the only relief from contempt orders that do not involve confinement is by

writ of mandamus).

Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no

jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex.

2007); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. The Court, having considered the documents on file

and appellant’s failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, the

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a), (c).

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 29th day of August, 2024.