NUMBER 13-16-00212-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
VANESSA TIJERINA, Appellant,
v.
DIANA CONDE, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 197th District Court
of Willacy County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Vanessa Tijerina, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed
on March 23, 2016, denying her motion to recuse and disqualify the Honorable Migdalia
Lopez. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from
which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. 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. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was
not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 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). 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). An
order denying a motion to disqualify may be reviewed by mandamus “and may be
appealed in accordance with other law.” See id. R. 18a(j)(2). Because there is no
“other law” allowing an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to disqualify in
a case such as this, the denial of the motion to disqualify may be reviewed on appeal
from the final judgment rendered in the cause. See id.; see also Gore v. Gore, No. 05-
13-01025-CV, 2014 WL 1018650, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 17, 2014, no pet.) (mem.
op.).
Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no
jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex.
2007); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; Northeast Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d
893, 895 (Tex. 1966). 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. See generally TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j).
2
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
19th day of May, 2016.
3