John Sholtis v. Jesse Rodriguez and Irma Rodriguez

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

                          NUMBER 13-15-00023-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

JOHN SHOLTIS,                                                                Appellant,

                                            v.

JESSE RODRIGUEZ AND
IRMA RODRIGUEZ,                                    Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

                On appeal from the County Court
                   of Live Oak County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

             Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
                    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, John Sholtis, attempted to perfect an appeal from the trial court’s order

denying his motion to recuse the trial court judge in trial court cause number CV01590.

Because this order is not an appealable order, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
       Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from

which this appeal was taken was not an appealable order. On January 13, 2015, the

Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct

the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected

within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be

dismissed. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

       In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review

final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-

Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). See Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-

Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990) (holding that order denying motion for judgment

nunc pro tunc is not appealable). An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed

only on appeal from a final judgment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(a).

       The Court, having fully reviewed and considered the documents herein, concludes

that the order appealed from fails to invoke our appellate jurisdiction and is of the opinion

that the cause should be dismissed. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                                  PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
26th day of February, 2015.




                                             2