Roy J. Elizondo III v. Andrew Smallbone

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 7, 2024
Docket13-23-00301-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Roy J. Elizondo III v. Andrew Smallbone (Roy J. Elizondo III v. Andrew Smallbone) 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
Roy J. Elizondo III v. Andrew Smallbone, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-23-00301-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ROY J. ELIZONDO III, Appellant,

v.

ANDREW SMALLBONE, Appellee.

On appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

On August 29, 2023, this Court issued a memorandum opinion dismissing this

appeal for want of jurisdiction on grounds that the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

See Elizondo v. Smallbone, No. 13-23-00301-CV, 2023 WL 5541118, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 29, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). By order issued on September 6, 2023, we withdrew our memorandum opinion and accompanying judgment

in the interests of justice. In short, we determined that the viability of the appeal was

related to a petition for writ of mandamus filed by appellant in our appellate cause number

13-23-00376-CV.

On February 9, 2024, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that

there was no final, appealable order in this appellate cause number. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3. The Clerk informed appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if this defect was

not cured within ten days. Appellant did not respond to the Clerk’s notice or otherwise

correct the defect in the appeal. See id. R. 42.3(a), (c).

By separate memorandum opinion issued in the petition for writ of mandamus, we

have determined that the trial court has not issued a final judgment or an appealable

interlocutory order, and thus the trial court retains jurisdiction over the underlying case.

See In re Elizondo, No. 13-23-00376-CV, 2024 WL _____, at *__ (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi–Edinburg Mar. 7, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we dismiss this

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

Delivered and filed on the 7th day of March, 2024.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Roy J. Elizondo III v. Andrew Smallbone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-j-elizondo-iii-v-andrew-smallbone-texapp-2024.