Charries Murray v. Willie Rose ( 2014 )

DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 27, 2014.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00235-CV
CHARRIES MURRAY, Appellant
V.
WILLIE ROSE, Appellee
On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-19586
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers
Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
In a letter dated April 21, 2014, the Court questioned jurisdiction over this appeal.
Specifically, although the notice of appeal stated that appellant appealed a final order of the trial
court dated February 19, 2014, the clerk’s record before the Court did not include an order
bearing that date and also did not include any other appealable order. We requested the appellant
to file a supplemental clerk’s record including the trial court’s order that was the subject of the
appeal. To date appellant has not responded. Nevertheless, the Court must determine whether it
has jurisdiction to proceed with this appeal, even if it is necessary to do so sua sponte. Bank of
New York Mellon v. Guzman, 390 S.W.3d 593, 596 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.); Pierce v.
Corbett, No. 05-97-00017-CV, 1999 WL 52964 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 5, 1999, no pet.)
(mem. op.).
Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. See
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Here there is no final judgment
from which the appellant has properly perfected an appeal in the clerk’s record. Accordingly,
the appellate record fails to reflect the existence of jurisdiction. Because we find no basis for
jurisdiction over this appeal, we DISMISS the appeal.
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE
140235F.P05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHARRIES MURRAY, Appellant On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-14-00235-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-19586.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers.
WILLIE ROSE, Appellee Justices Bridges and Francis participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want
of jurisdiction.
It is ORDERED that appellee WILLIE ROSE recover his costs of this appeal from
appellant CHARRIES MURRAY.
Judgment entered this 27th day of June, 2014.
–3–