In the Interest of D. B. Jr., a Child Appeal from 430th District Court of Hidalgo County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-17-00116-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF D. B. JR., A CHILD ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 430th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Appellant, Daniel Bernal, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed on February 15, 2017, in cause no. F-184-10-J. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment dated February 15, 2017. On February 23, 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 failed to respond to the Court’s notice. The Hidalgo County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that temporary orders were signed on March 3, 2017, but no final judgment has been entered. 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). LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice Delivered and filed the 13th day of April, 2017. 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.
