Venky Venkatraman v. Texas Board of Law Examiners ( 2024 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-24-00107-CV
Venky Venkatraman, Appellant
v.
Texas Board of Law Examiners, Appellee
FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-22-000521, THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Venky Venkatraman attempts to appeal from an order signed by the trial court on
January 26, 2024, that denied his “Motion for Judicial Review of Decision by the [Texas Board
of Law Examiners] Denying Plaintiff’s Petition for Redetermination.” The trial court rendered
a final judgment in this same underlying cause on August 19, 2022. No party filed a motion
thereafter that would have extended the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction. See Tex. R. Civ.
P. 329b(e), (g). Therefore, the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction expired on September 19, 2022—
thirty days after the final judgment was signed. See id. R. 329b(d).
After the expiration of its plenary jurisdiction, a trial court can only correct
clerical errors in a judgment by issuing a judgment nunc pro tunc. See Escobar v. Escobar,
711 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Tex. 1986). A judgment or order rendered after plenary power has
expired is void. In re Brookshire Grocery Co., 250 S.W.3d 66, 68–69 (Tex. 2008); In re
Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000). While it is wholly unnecessary to
appeal from a void judgment or order, it is nevertheless settled that an appeal may be taken and
the appellate court in such a proceeding may declare the judgment or order void. State ex rel.
Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995); Bahar v. Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 03-07-
00469-CV, 2009 WL 2341864, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin July 28, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
(holding that trial court’s order denying motion to vacate judgment signed after plenary power
had expired was void because trial court lacked jurisdiction to further rule).
Because the trial court’s plenary power had expired when it signed the order at
issue, the trial court had lost jurisdiction to address the merits of Venkatraman’s motion and
should have dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Bahar, 2009 WL 2341864,
at *3. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the motion, the order
denying the motion is void. See id. We accordingly vacate the order and dismiss this appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(e); Bahar, 2009 WL 2341864, at *3.
__________________________________________
Thomas J. Baker, Justice
Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly
Vacated and Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: May 31, 2024
2