in the Interest of J.Y., a Child ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-20-00015-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J.Y., A CHILD
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20-C-0115-CCL
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Erica Yeager has attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by the County Court
at Law of Bowie County. Because the order is not appealable, we dismiss Yeager’s attempted
appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Yeager has attempted to appeal the trial court’s February 25, 2020, order asserting
jurisdiction over the case and finding that Bowie County is the appropriate venue for the case. The
notice of appeal first indicates that this is an accelerated appeal pursuant to Section 152.314 of the
Texas Family Code. However, Section 152.314 states that “[a]n appeal may be taken from a final
order in a proceeding under [Chapter 152, subchapter D, of the Texas Family Code].” TEX. FAM.
CODE ANN. § 152.314 (Supp.) (emphasis added). The trial court’s February 25, 2020, order does
not appear to be a final order.
The notice of appeal next asserts that the appeal is taken pursuant to Section 51.014 of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which identifies a number of orders from which an
interlocutory appeal may be taken. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (Supp.).
However, the notice does not identify the specific subsection of Section 51.014 that authorizes an
interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s February 25, 2020, order, and we find none that apply
here.
Our jurisdiction as an appellate court is constitutional and statutory in nature. See TEX.
CONST. art. V, § 6; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220 (Supp.). Unless we are given specific
authority over an appeal from a particular type of order, we have jurisdiction only over appeals
from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). It appears
2
that the order from which Yeager attempts to appeal was not a final, appealable order. See id.
Consequently, it appears that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
By letter dated March 4, 2020, we informed Yeager of this potential defect in our
jurisdiction and afforded her the opportunity to demonstrate proper grounds for our retention of
the appeal. While Yeager filed a response, she failed to identify any authority to contradict the
conclusion that we are without jurisdiction over this appeal.
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Scott E. Stevens
Justice
Date Submitted: March 10, 2020
Date Decided: March 11, 2020
3