NUMBER 13-16-00424-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.S., A CHILD
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 94th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Lindsey Salas, attempts to appeal an order of enforcement by contempt
and suspension of commitment for failing to provide possession and access to minor
child, L.L.S. The order provides for commitment for a period of eighteen months,
suspended, and awards appellee Robert Salas the amount of $11,200.00 for attorney’s
fees, expenses, and costs.
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and specific
types of interlocutory orders designated by the legislature as appealable. Lehmann v.
Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
ANN. § 51.014 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). A judgment is final and appealable
if it disposes of all parties and all issues. Lehmann, 39 S.W.2d at 195. Without
affirmative statutory authority to hear an interlocutory appeal, this court is without
jurisdiction. Id.
The order issued by the trial court was not a final, appealable judgment.
Additionally, the order held appellant in contempt and this court does not have jurisdiction
to review contempt orders by direct appeal. See Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655,
655 (Tex. 1985); Tracy v. Tracy, 219 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.);
In re B.C.C., 187 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, no pet.). Contempt orders
may be reviewed only by an application for a writ of habeas corpus, if the contemnor has
been confined, or by a petition for a writ of mandamus, if the contemnor has not been
confined. See Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 962 (Tex. 1995); Ex parte Williams,
690 S.W.2d 243, 243 (Tex. 1985); Tracy, 219 S.W.3d at 290.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the
opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3(a), (c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed this the
10th day of November, 2016.
2