SIX THOUSAND FIFTY-NINE DOLLARS, UNITED STATES CURRENCY v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 37th District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-11-00231-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ SIX THOUSAND FIFTY-NINE DOLLARS, UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 37th District Court of Bexar County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Dennis Gay, attemped to perfect an appeal from a judgment signed on February 24, 2011, in cause no. 2011-CI-02296. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment dated February 24, 2011. On May 23, 2011, 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 failed to respond to the Court=s notice. The Bexar County Clerk s Office has informed this Court that no final judgment has been signed in this case. 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). 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). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 21st day of July, 2011. 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.
