Mark Pereida v. State ( 2010 )

NUMBER 13-09-00608-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
MARIA DE JESUS GARCIA, Appellant,
v.
WILFRIDO GARCIA AND THE LAW FUNDER, LLC, Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 449th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Maria de Jesus Garcia, attempted to perfect an appeal from an
interlocutory order entered by the 449th District Court of Hidalgo, County, Texas, in cause
no. F-551-05-K. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order pursuant to
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §51.014(a)(1). The notice of appeal refers
to an order signed on October 9, 2009, which modified an order appointing receivers.
The clerk’s record does not contain an order signed October 9, 2009, and the District
Clerk of Hidalgo County informed us that there is no signed order of October 9, 2009.
Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this
appeal was taken was not an 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 this
notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant failed to
respond to the Court=s notice.
On March 3, 2010, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that she was delinquent
in remitting a $175.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the appeal
was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of
receipt of this letter. See id. 42.3(b),(c). Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s
notice.
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. See id. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION. See id. 42.3(a),(c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
15th day of July, 2010.
2