Charries Murray v. Willie Rose

DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 27, 2014.

S In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00235-CV CHARRIES MURRAY, Appellant V. WILLIE ROSE, Appellee On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-19586

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

In a letter dated April 21, 2014, the Court questioned jurisdiction over this appeal. Specifically, although the notice of appeal stated that appellant appealed a final order of the trial court dated February 19, 2014, the clerk’s record before the Court did not include an order bearing that date and also did not include any other appealable order. We requested the appellant to file a supplemental clerk’s record including the trial court’s order that was the subject of the appeal. To date appellant has not responded. Nevertheless, the Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to proceed with this appeal, even if it is necessary to do so sua sponte. Bank of New York Mellon v. Guzman, 390 S.W.3d 593, 596 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.); Pierce v. Corbett, No. 05-97-00017-CV, 1999 WL 52964 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 5, 1999, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Here there is no final judgment from which the appellant has properly perfected an appeal in the clerk’s record. Accordingly, the appellate record fails to reflect the existence of jurisdiction. Because we find no basis for jurisdiction over this appeal, we DISMISS the appeal.

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE

140235F.P05

S

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CHARRIES MURRAY, Appellant On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District

Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-14-00235-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-19586.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers. WILLIE ROSE, Appellee Justices Bridges and Francis participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

It is ORDERED that appellee WILLIE ROSE recover his costs of this appeal from appellant CHARRIES MURRAY.

Judgment entered this 27th day of June, 2014.