NUMBER 13-16-00586-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
EX PARTE ALFRED SCHUETZE
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 445th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras
Appellant, Alfred Schuetze, attempted to perfect an appeal from the trial court’s
October 5, 2016 order denying his motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment. Because
this denial 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 November 4, 2016, 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 has failed to respond to this 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). In this regard, orders denying motions for
judgment nunc pro tunc are not subject to appeal. See Shadowbrook Apartments v.
Abu-Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam) (holding that an order denying
a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not appealable); see also In re Hernandez, No.
14-13-01038-CV, 2014 WL 6854621, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 4, 2014,
no pet.) (consolidated appeal & orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam) (“An order
denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not a final, appealable judgment.”).
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). All other pending motions are likewise
DISMISSED.
DORI CONTRERAS
Justice
Delivered and filed the
23rd day of February, 2017.
2