IN THE INTEREST OF L. E. M., A CHILD--Appeal from 423rd District Court of Bastrop County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-13-00417-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF L.E.M., A CHILD ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 423rd District Court of Bastrop County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Kacie Miller, attempted to perfect an appeal from orders signed on November 6, 2012 and May 22, 2013 in the 423rd District Court of Bastrop County in trial court cause number 423-2364. Her appeal was transferred to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals by order of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.220(a) (West Supp. 2011) (delineating the jurisdiction of appellate courts); TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005) (granting the supreme court the authority to transfer cases from one court of appeals to another at any time that there is good cause for the transfer). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant s perfecting document is entitled Notice of Mandamus Appeal. On August 8, 2013, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that: (1) the orders that she was attempting to appeal were not appealable; (2) the appeal had not been timely perfected; and (3) the filing did not meet the requirements for original proceedings under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of these defects so that steps could be taken to correct the defects, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if the defects were not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice. In response, appellant has filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Mandamus. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant s failure to correct the defects in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See id. R. 42.3(a),(c). The dismissal of this appeal is without regard to the merits and is without prejudice to any original proceeding that may ensue. Appellant s Motion for Extension of Time to File Mandamus is DISMISSED AS MOOT. PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 12th day of September, 2013. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
