in the Interest of A. D. S. and B. L. S., Children

NUMBER 13-18-00675-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.S. AND B.L.S., CHILDREN
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 347th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
Appellant Derek D. Smith, proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal from
trial court proceedings pertaining to child support in cause number 05-01818-00-0-H in
the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final
judgments. See City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann
v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Further, appellate courts have
jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides
for such an appeal. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex.
2007); see City of Watauga, 434 S.W.3d at 588.
The record before the Court fails to contain a final judgment or an interlocutory
order that is subject to appeal by statute. Accordingly, on December 17, 2018, the Clerk
of this court notified appellant by certified mail that it appeared that there was no final,
appealable order so that steps could be taken to correct this defect, if it could be done.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3(a). Appellant was advised that the appeal would be
dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this
notice. This correspondence was returned to the Court as unclaimed.
On January 9, 2018, the Court notified appellant by first-class mail and certified
mail that it appeared that there was no final, appealable order so that steps could be taken
to correct this defect, if it could be done. See id. R. 37.1, 42.3(a). Appellant was
advised that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten
days from the date of receipt of this notice. The certified mail was returned to this Court
unclaimed, and appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice sent by first-class mail.
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
id. R. 37.1, 42.3(a),(c).
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
Delivered and filed the
28th day of February, 2019.
2