Opinion
NO. 03-21-00018-CV
03-12-2021
Omar Weaver Rosales, Appellant v. Commission For Lawyer Discipline, Appellee
FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-19-006782, THE HONORABLE C. MICHAEL DAVIS, JUDGE PRESIDINGMEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellee, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline, has filed a motion to dismiss this interlocutory appeal in which Omar Weaver Rosales complains about the trial court's order denying his plea to the jurisdiction. The Commission argues that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this appeal. We agree.
Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. See Lehman v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An appellate court also has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order if a statute explicitly provides jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders, including for denials of pleas to jurisdiction filed by governmental units but not for pleas to jurisdiction filed by individuals). The interlocutory order that Rosales appeals does not meet the criteria of any of the statutorily enumerated exceptions to the general rule that interlocutory orders are not appealable, and Rosales—in his response opposing the motion to dismiss—does not cite to any other authority conferring jurisdiction on this Court over his appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014; CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) ("Unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have jurisdiction over final judgments."). Accordingly, we grant the Commission's motion and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.
/s/_________
Thomas J. Baker, Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: March 12, 2021