Vicker Sichanthavong v. Deidra Whitfield

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-19-00363-CV
________________________
VICKER SICHANTHAVONG, APPELLANT
V.
DEIDRA WHITFIELD, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the County Court at Law Number One
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 107,223-1-CV; Honorable R. Walton Weaver, Presiding
October 31, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Appellant, Vicker Sichanthavong, appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal,
identifying the above-referenced trial court cause, without identifying the judgment or
order from which he seeks to appeal. The trial court clerk has informed us that the trial
court has not issued any judgments or orders in this case and the case remains pending.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an
interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex.
1998) (per curiam). No final judgment or appealable order has been entered in this case.
Thus, by letter of October 18, 2019, we directed Sichanthavong to show how we have
jurisdiction over the appeal. Sichanthavong filed a response asserting that we have
“mandamus jurisdiction” over the appeal because the trial court has refused to submit the
case for trial.
Our appellate review is distinct from our ability to grant mandamus relief. On
appeal, we review final judgments and appealable orders for error. On the other hand,
we may issue a writ of mandamus in an original proceeding to correct a clear abuse of
discretion or compel the performance of a ministerial act when there is no adequate
remedy by appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). Here, Sichanthavong filed a notice of appeal but did not present this court
with a final judgment or appealable order to review. To the extent Sichanthavong now
seeks mandamus relief, he has failed to file a petition complying with Rule of Appellate
Procedure 52.3.
For these reasons, we dismiss Sichanthavong’s purported appeal for want of
jurisdiction and deny all further relief requested. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
Per Curiam
2