Case Information
*1 NUMBER 13-16-00586-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ EX PARTE ALFRED SCHUETZE
____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras
Appellant, Alfred Schuetze, attempted to perfect an appeal from the trial court’s October 5, 2016 order denying his motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment. Because this denial is not an appealable order, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not an appealable order. On November 4, 2016, 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. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected *2 within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notice.
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). In this regard, orders denying motions for judgment nunc pro tunc are not subject to appeal. See Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad , 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam) (holding that an order denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not appealable); see also In re Hernandez , No. 14-13-01038-CV, 2014 WL 6854621, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 4, 2014, no pet.) (consolidated appeal & orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam) (“An order denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not a final, appealable judgment.”).
The Court, having fully reviewed and considered the documents herein, concludes that the order appealed from fails to invoke our appellate jurisdiction and is of the opinion that the cause should be dismissed. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a). All other pending motions are likewise DISMISSED.
DORI CONTRERAS Justice Delivered and filed the
23rd day of February, 2017.
2