Raymond Trent Peterek v. Stanley Oehlke ( 2018 )

NUMBER 13-18-00325-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
RAYMOND TRENT PETEREK, APPELLANT,
v.
STANLEY OEHLKE, APPELLEE.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 135th District Court
of Goliad County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
Appellant Raymond Trent Peterek, proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an
appeal from an order entered by the 135th District Court at Law of Goliad County, Texas
in cause number 18-02-0644-CV. The order denies Peterek’s motion for teleconference
hearing for the motion to strike evidence.
Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from
which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. 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 Court’s notice, the appeal
would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a response to the Clerk’s
notice. Appellant states “[a]s for this not being a final appealable judgment, this was the
only motion filed at this time.” He states he has filed a declaration of indigence and
motion for a free appellate record and “[s]ince everything has been filed with the trial court
clerk, there should be no defects, if the paperwork would all be forwarded to the 13th Court
of Appeals.”
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. See City of Watauga
v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,
195 (Tex. 2001). Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory
orders only if a statute explicitly provides for such an appeal. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v.
Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007); see City of Watauga, 434 S.W.3d at 588;
Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co.,
Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
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. The order at issue in this case is neither a final judgment nor an
interlocutory appeal authorized by statute. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want
2
of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c). All pending motions or requests for relief
are likewise dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
26th day of July, 2018.
3