Cornelius Hudson v. Major Joe E. and Shirley Bryant ( 2012 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00311-CV
CORNELIUS HUDSON APPELLANT
V.
MAJOR JOE E. AND SHIRLEY APPELLEES
BRYANT
----------
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Cornelius Hudson, pro se, attempts to appeal from a contempt judgment.
On August 22, 2012, we notified Hudson of our concern that we might not have
jurisdiction over this appeal because contempt judgments generally are not
appealable. See Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243, 243 n.1 (Tex. 1985) (orig.
proceeding); In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tex.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding) (“A contempt judgment may be
attacked by a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the contemnor is confined) or a
petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved) . . .; however,
because a contempt order is not a final judgment, a remedy by appeal does not
lie.”) (citation omitted). We stated that unless Hudson or any party desiring to
continue this appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal
on or before September 4, 2012, this appeal could be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Hudson filed a response, but it does
not show grounds for continuing this appeal.
Because the contempt judgment at issue is not a final judgment, nor is it
an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DELIVERED: September 27, 2012
2