In the Interest of L. L. S., a Child Appeal from 94th District Court of Nueces County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00424-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.S., A CHILD ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Lindsey Salas, attempts to appeal an order of enforcement by contempt and suspension of commitment for failing to provide possession and access to minor child, L.L.S. The order provides for commitment for a period of eighteen months, suspended, and awards appellee Robert Salas the amount of $11,200.00 for attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs. Appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and specific types of interlocutory orders designated by the legislature as appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). A judgment is final and appealable if it disposes of all parties and all issues. Lehmann, 39 S.W.2d at 195. Without affirmative statutory authority to hear an interlocutory appeal, this court is without jurisdiction. Id. The order issued by the trial court was not a final, appealable judgment. Additionally, the order held appellant in contempt and this court does not have jurisdiction to review contempt orders by direct appeal. See Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655, 655 (Tex. 1985); Tracy v. Tracy, 219 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.); In re B.C.C., 187 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, no pet.). Contempt orders may be reviewed only by an application for a writ of habeas corpus, if the contemnor has been confined, or by a petition for a writ of mandamus, if the contemnor has not been confined. See Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 962 (Tex. 1995); Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243, 243 (Tex. 1985); Tracy, 219 S.W.3d at 290. The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed this the 10th day of November, 2016. 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.
