NUMBER 13-10-00612-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ APPEAL OF GEORGE W. LONG, APPLICANT ____________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region of Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Applicant, George W. Long, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region of Texas, in cause no. 09-CR-2157-B. 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 December 30, 2010, 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 failed to respond to the Court=s notice.

Appellant is an attorney who was appointed to represent a defendant in the trial court of County Court at Law No. 1 of Cameron County. Appellant submitted a fee application to the trial court for services performed. The trial court judge approved a fee less than what was requested and this was appealed to the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region of Texas. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(c). The presiding judge of the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region of Texas issued an order on September 10, 2010, affirming the trial court’s order.

Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears that the order of September 10, 2010, from which this appeal was taken, is not an appealable order. 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 issued by the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure Article 26.05(c) 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).

PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 31st day of March, 2011.