Jonathan Hunt v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles ( 2012 )

Opinion issued August 30, 2012
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-12-00517-CV
____________
JONATHAN HUNT, Appellant
V.
TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES, Appellee
On Appeal from the 215th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2011-76984
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an attempted appeal from an order sustaining a contest to appellant’s
affidavit of indigence for trial court costs and ordering that appellant pay the costs
of his suit in the trial court. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final
judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if authorized by statute. Bally Total
Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001).
Here, the record reveals that no final judgment has been entered in this
pending case. The trial court’s order sustaining the contest to appellant’s affidavit
of indigence for trial court costs is an interlocutory order. Appellant cites no
authority, and we have found none, providing for an interlocutory appeal to be
taken from this order. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.
§ 51.014(a) (West 2008); see, e.g., Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV,
2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs); Aguilar v. Texas La Fiesta
Auto Sales LLC, No. 01-08-00653-CV, 2009 WL 1562838, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] June 4, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order
sustaining contest to affidavit of indigence for trial court costs).
We may review a challenge to an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of
indigence only when it is made as part of a pending appeal from a final judgment or
other appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1; In re Arroyo, 988 S.W.2d 737,
738–39 (Tex. 1998).
2
On July 30, 2012, the Court notified the parties of its intent to dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating this
court’s jurisdiction on or before August 9, 2012. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). No
meritorious response showing grounds for continuing the appeal was filed.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown.
3