Raymond Trent Peterek v. Melissa Jean Allison Appeal from County Court at Law of Aransas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-17-00542-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ 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-157029-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.1 1 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. HarCon 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. JURISDICTION. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 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. 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.
