NUMBER 13-17-00542-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
RAYMOND TRENT PETEREK, Appellant,
v.
MELISSA JEAN ALLISON, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law
of Aransas County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
Appellant, Raymond Trent Peterek, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order
denying his request for a teleconference signed on August 22, 2017, in cause no. A-15-
7029-FL. This Court previously issued a memorandum opinion and judgment on May
19, 2016, regarding this trial court cause number in cause number 13-16-00133-CV.1
1 This Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because appellant failed to timely perfect
his appeal from a final decree of divorce. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1.
Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no
final, appealable judgment dated August 22, 2017. On October 6, 2017, 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 the notice, the appeal
would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant responded to the Court’s notice
and advised that we should have received the notice of appeal pertaining to a final order
concerning his motion for teleconference hearing.
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 appeal of an order denying a request
for a teleconference is not authorized by statute. See Id.
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. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c). All pending motions are likewise
dismissed.
/s/ Rogelio Valdez
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed the
2nd day of November, 2017.
2