Six Thousand Fifty-Nine Dollars, United States Currency v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 21, 2011
• Docket: 13-11-00231-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                       NUMBER 13-11-00231-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

SIX THOUSAND FIFTY-NINE DOLLARS,

UNITED STATES CURRENCY,                                                   Appellant,

                                                             v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                 Appellee.

                            On appeal from the 37th District Court

                                         of Bexar County, Texas.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Dennis Gay, attemped to perfect an appeal from a judgment signed on February 24, 2011, in cause no. 2011-CI-02296.  Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment dated February 24, 2011.  On May 23, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.1, 42.3.   Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Appellant failed to respond to the Court=s notice.

The Bexar County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no final judgment has been signed in this case.  In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute.  Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).  

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.  Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a),(c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

21st day of July, 2011.