From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peterek v. Allison

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Nov 2, 2017
NUMBER 13-17-00542-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2017)

Summary

dismissing an appeal of an order denying appellant's request for a teleconference

Summary of this case from Peterek v. Allison

Opinion

NUMBER 13-17-00542-CV

11-02-2017

RAYMOND TRENT PETEREK, Appellant, v. MELISSA JEAN ALLISON, Appellee.


On appeal from the County Court at Law of Aransas County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Appellant, Raymond Trent Peterek, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order denying his request for a teleconference signed on August 22, 2017, in cause no. A-15-7029-FL. This Court previously issued a memorandum opinion and judgment on May 19, 2016, regarding this trial court cause number in cause number 13-16-00133-CV.

This Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because appellant failed to timely perfect his appeal from a final decree of divorce. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1.

Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment dated August 22, 2017. On October 6, 2017, 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 responded to the Court's notice and advised that we should have received the notice of appeal pertaining to a final order concerning his motion for teleconference hearing.

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). An appeal of an order denying a request for a teleconference is not authorized by statute. See Id.

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). All pending motions are likewise dismissed.

/s/ Rogelio Valdez

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice Delivered and filed the 2nd day of November, 2017.


Summaries of

Peterek v. Allison

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Nov 2, 2017
NUMBER 13-17-00542-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2017)

dismissing an appeal of an order denying appellant's request for a teleconference

Summary of this case from Peterek v. Allison

dismissing an appeal of an order denying appellant's request for a teleconference

Summary of this case from Peterek v. Allison
Case details for

Peterek v. Allison

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND TRENT PETEREK, Appellant, v. MELISSA JEAN ALLISON, Appellee.

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

Date published: Nov 2, 2017

Citations

NUMBER 13-17-00542-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2017)

Citing Cases

Peterek v. Allison

Appellant has pursued other pro se appeals arising from this same trial court cause number. See Peterek v.…

Peterek v. Allison

Appellant has pursued other pro se appeals arising from this same trial court cause number. See Peterek v.…