Opinion
NO. 02-12-00311-CV
09-27-2012
CORNELIUS HUDSON APPELLANT v. MAJOR JOE E. AND SHIRLEY BRYANT APPELLEES
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cornelius Hudson, pro se, attempts to appeal from a contempt judgment. On August 22, 2012, we notified Hudson of our concern that we might not have jurisdiction over this appeal because contempt judgments generally are not appealable. See Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243, 243 n.1 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding); In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding) ("A contempt judgment may be attacked by a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the contemnor is confined) or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved) . . .; however, because a contempt order is not a final judgment, a remedy by appeal does not lie.") (citation omitted). We stated that unless Hudson or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before September 4, 2012, this appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Hudson filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing this appeal.
Because the contempt judgment at issue is not a final judgment, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.