Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00577-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG JOHNNY PARTAIN, Appellant, v. CONSTABLE J.E. “EDDIE” GUERRA, HIDALGO COUNTY PRECINCT 4 IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUALLY, AND ET AL., Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE 332ND DISTRICT COURT OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On August 7, 2026, appellant Johhny Partain filed a pro se notice of appeal attempting to appeal a July 1, 2026 order by the trial court in cause number C-0929-12-F. On August 14, 2026, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appeared he was attempting to appeal an order which is unappealable. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3(a). Appellant was advised that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of the Court’s directive. See id. R. 42.3(a). On the same day, appellant filed his “Emergency Motion to Stay and Determine Jurisdiction,” which responded to our notice, among other things. We are obligated to review sua sponte issues affecting our jurisdiction. State ex rel. Best v. Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. 2018) (citing M.O. Dental Lab v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam)). “[A]ppellate courts do not have jurisdiction to address the merits of appeals from void orders or judgments; rather, they have jurisdiction only to determine that the order or judgment underlying the appeal is void and make appropriate orders based on that determination.” Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam). The current cause is not the first appeal involving the parties or the underlying trial court cause. See Partain v. Compass Bank, Nos. 13-21-00038-CV, 13-21-00039-CV, 13- 21-00040-CV, 13-21-00041-CV, 13-21-00042-CV, 13-21-00043-CV, 13-21-00044-CV, 2021 WL 2149825, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 27, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). We take judicial notice of the appellate record of appellant’s prior appeals. See Douglas v. Am. Title Co., 196 S.W.3d 876, 877–78 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (citation omitted) (“We may take judicial notice of our own records involving the same parties and subject matter.”). The record demonstrates that on November 9, 2015, appellant filed his second amended petition against numerous parties, including the State of Texas, and lodged 2 numerous claims. On January 4, 2021, the trial court granted the State’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed appellant’s claims against the State with prejudice. On January 25, 2021, appellant filed several notices of appeal attempting to appeal, among other things, the trial court’s order granting the State’s plea to the jurisdiction. However, on March 27, 2021, this Court dismissed all of appellant’s appeals for want of prosecution for failing to pay filing fees, and our mandate issued on August 10, 2021. See Partain, 2021 WL 2149825, at *1. Years later, on January 24, 2025, appellant filed a motion to dismiss requesting the trial court to dismiss his case as moot. On July 29, 2025, the trial court signed its order dismissing appellant’s case with prejudice. The order stated the following: COMES NOW THE COURT finding that [appellant] has already been justly and adequately compensated by the [State] for all his claims in the above styled and number cause, making this case MOOT. IT IS ORDERED that any orders or judgments previously issued in this case are vacated. IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The State filed a motion to vacate the July 29, 2025 order, 1 arguing that it was void because the trial court lacked plenary jurisdiction to enter any orders after it issued its order granting the State’s plea to the jurisdiction years before. On July 1, 2026, the trial court signed its order granting the State’s motion and vacating its July 29, 2025 order, which appellant is now attempting to appeal. Appellant contends in his motions before us that a final judgment in this cause was rendered when the trial court signed its January 24, 2025 order granting his motion to 1 The limited record before us concerning the instant cause does not clearly indicate when the State’s motion to vacate was filed. 3 dismiss and not on January 25, 2021, when it signed its order granting the State’s plea to the jurisdiction. It is not clear, based on the record before us, whether the trial court rendered a final judgment on January 24, 2025, or on January 25, 2021, when it granted the State’s plea to the jurisdiction. This determination, however, is immaterial regarding whether the order appellant now attempts to appeal is appealable. “[T]he general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment.” In re Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001)); Rosenberg Dev. Corp. v. Imperial Performing Arts, Inc., 526 S.W.3d 693, 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017), aff’d, 571 S.W.3d 738, 741 (Tex. 2019) (“The legislature . . . has specified circumstances in which a litigant may appeal immediately from an otherwise unappealable order because a final judgment has not been rendered.”). A judgment or order is final if it disposes of all issues and parties. See Jones, 629 S.W.3d at 925. Generally, plenary power expires thirty days after a final judgment is signed, unless a party files a timely motion for new trial or other postjudgment motion, such as a motion to vacate judgment, in which case plenary power can extend for a total of 105 days. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(c), (e); see also L.M. Healthcare, Inc. v. Childs, 929 S.W.2d 442, 444 (Tex. 1996) (plenary jurisdiction cannot extend beyond 105 days after trial court signs judgment). Judicial action taken after the expiration of the trial court’s plenary power is a nullity, and any orders signed outside its plenary jurisdiction are void. See Malone v. Hampton, 182 S.W.3d 465, 468 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1995) (“A judgment is void only when it is 4 clear that the court rendering the judgment had no jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter, no jurisdiction to render judgment, or no capacity to act as a court.”); Ruffin v. Grassano Props. Inc., No. 09-22-00422-CV, 2024 WL 4986065, at *3 (Tex. App.— Beaumont Dec. 5, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“A court’s order is void to the extent that the court lacked capacity or jurisdiction to render the order.”). Assuming without deciding that the trial court rendered a final judgment on January 25, 2021, the order being appealed was rendered many years after the trial court’s plenary power expired. See Malone, 182 S.W.3d at 468. Alternatively, assuming without deciding that the trial court rendered a final judgment on January 24, 2025, and the State timely filed its motion to vacate, the order being appealed was rendered more than a year after the trial court’s plenary power expired. See id. In sum, whether the trial court rendered a final judgment on January 24, 2025, or January 25, 2021, the July 1, 2026 order was rendered outside its plenary jurisdiction and was therefore void.2 See id. When a party attempts to appeal a void order, the appellate court must vacate the order and dismiss the appeal. See Freedom Commc’ns, 372 S.W.3d at 623; Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s July 1, 2026 order and dismiss the case. 3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(e). CLARISSA SILVA Justice Delivered and filed on the 31st day of August, 2026. 2 In addition, even assuming there was no final judgment in this case, there is no applicable statute permitting an interlocutory appeal of the order appellant attempts to appeal in this cause. See Harley Channelview Props., LLC v. Harley Marine Gulf, LLC, 690 S.W.3d 32, 37 (Tex. 2024). (“An appellate court has no jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order unless review is conferred by statute.”). 3 All pending motions are dismissed as moot. 5