Patricia Ann Potts v. Crosby Independent School District

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 18, 2007
• Docket: 14-06-01051-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 18, 2007

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 18, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-01051-CV

PATRICIA ANN POTTS, Individually and as Next Friend to ALLEY WILLIAM, Appellants

V.

CROSBY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2006-65380

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from orders signed November 13, 2006, and November 29, 2006, sustaining the contest to appellant=s affidavit of inability to pay costs.  The clerk=s record was filed on January 8, 2007.  The record reveals that no final judgment has been entered in this case.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments.  Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).  Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute.  Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

On December 14, 2006, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court=s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response on or before December 29, 2006, demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  On January 8, 2007, appellants filed two documents in response to this court=s order, an amended notice of appeal and an objection on this court=s refusal to rule on her request for an appointed attorney.  Appellants= amended notice of appeal states that the appeal is from the orders sustaining the contest to the affidavit of indigence and from the trial court=s refusal to rule on various motions, including the denial of appointment of counsel, a request for a finding of contempt, and motions for Apreventive relief.@ 

Appellants= response to this court=s notice of intention to dismiss fails to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal.  There is no statutory grant of the right to immediately appeal, before entry of final judgment, any of the matters about which appellants complain.  See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2006).  Therefore, we lack jurisdiction of this attempted interlocutory appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed July 18, 2007.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Edelman.