Angelic Romo v. Samuel Suarez Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Nueces County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-20-00420-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ ANGELIC ROMO, Appellant, v. SAMUEL SUAREZ, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria Appellant Angelic Romo attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed on October 7, 2020, granting appellee’s attorney’s motion to withdraw and to substitute counsel. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. 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 fifteen days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice. 1 Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Northeast Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). 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). NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Delivered and filed the 10th day of December, 2020. Appellant has subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this matter under appellate cause number 13-20-00440-CV, which remains pending with the Court. 1 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.
