Armon Crenshaw v. Shanique Thomas ( 2023 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00795-CV
Armon Crenshaw, Appellant
v.
Shanique Thomas, Appellee
FROM THE 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 18-0620-F395, THE HONORABLE RYAN D. LARSON, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Armon Crenshaw filed notice of appeal complaining of the trial court’s
dismissal of a recusal request. 1 Upon initial review, the Clerk of this Court sent Crenshaw a
letter informing him that this Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal because our
jurisdiction is limited to appeals in which there exists a final or appealable judgment or order.
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195
(Tex. 2001) (explaining that appeal generally may only be taken from final judgment that
disposes of all pending parties and claims in record unless statute provides for interlocutory
appeal). In this case, the action by the trial court referenced by Crenshaw does not appear to be
an appealable interlocutory order. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998)
(“Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if
1
The notice of appeal does not include a copy of the relevant order by the trial court.
a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction.”); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ 51.014 (specifically permitting appeal of various interlocutory orders). The Clerk requested a
response on or before May 1, 2023, informing this Court of any basis that exists for jurisdiction.
Crenshaw failed to file any response.
We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.
P. 42.3(a). 2
__________________________________________
Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: May 9, 2023
2
Even if we could exercise jurisdiction over this appeal, this appeal would be dismissed
for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). Appellant’s brief was originally due on
February 13, 2023. On April 5, 2023, this Court sent a notice to appellant informing him that his
brief was overdue and that a failure to file a satisfactory response by April 17, 2023 would result
in the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or
a motion for extension of time.
2