From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex parte Schuetze

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Feb 23, 2017
NUMBER 13-16-00586-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 23, 2017)

Opinion

NUMBER 13-16-00586-CV

02-23-2017

EX PARTE ALFRED SCHUETZE


On appeal from the 445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras

Appellant, Alfred Schuetze, attempted to perfect an appeal from the trial court's October 5, 2016 order denying his motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment. Because this denial is not an appealable order, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not an appealable order. On November 4, 2016, 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. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court's letter, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has failed to respond to this Court's notice.

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). In this regard, orders denying motions for judgment nunc pro tunc are not subject to appeal. See Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam) (holding that an order denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not appealable); see also In re Hernandez, No. 14-13-01038-CV, 2014 WL 6854621, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 4, 2014, no pet.) (consolidated appeal & orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam) ("An order denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not a final, appealable judgment.").

The Court, having fully reviewed and considered the documents herein, concludes that the order appealed from fails to invoke our appellate jurisdiction and is of the opinion that the cause should be dismissed. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). All other pending motions are likewise DISMISSED.

DORI CONTRERAS

Justice Delivered and filed the 23rd day of February, 2017.


Summaries of

Ex parte Schuetze

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Feb 23, 2017
NUMBER 13-16-00586-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 23, 2017)
Case details for

Ex parte Schuetze

Case Details

Full title:EX PARTE ALFRED SCHUETZE

Court:COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Date published: Feb 23, 2017

Citations

NUMBER 13-16-00586-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 23, 2017)

Citing Cases

Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Schuetze

Schuetze appealed the trial court's denial of the motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc to this Court. However,…