Keith Russell Judd v. Karen Y. Corey-Steele

Opinion filed November 9, 2006

 

 

Opinion filed November 9, 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                        In The

                                                                             

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

 

                                                          No. 11-06-00287-CV

                                                    __________

 

                                  KEITH RUSSELL JUDD, Appellant

 

                                                             V.

 

                                KAREN Y. COREY-STEELE, Appellee

 

 

                                         On Appeal from the 244th District Court

 

                                                           Ector County, Texas

 

                                                Trial Court Cause No. C-103,828

 

 

                                             M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

The trial court signed the divorce decree in this case on January 13, 1998.  On October 12, 2006, Keith Russell Judd filed with the clerk of the trial court a pro se notice of appeal.  Upon receipt of the notice of appeal in this court, the clerk of this court wrote the parties and advised them that it appeared the notice of appeal was not timely.

Judd has responded to our letter of October 20, 2006, by filing various pro se motions.  Each motion has been considered, and each is overruled.


Judd contends that he perfected an appeal by filing documents in 1998.  However, the only notice of appeal forwarded to this court is file-marked 2006.  Judd contends that he is entitled to a new trial because his documents have been lost or destroyed.  However, Judd has not established that Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(e) applies to his appeal.

Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 25 & 26.  Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

 

PER CURIAM

 

November 9, 2006

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.