Diego Raoul Goding v. Margo Dehoyos
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Date FiledJuly 28, 2026
Docket01-26-00062-CV
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Opinion issued July 28, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-26-00062-CV
NO. 01-26-00067-CV
———————————
DIEGO RAOUL GODING, Appellant
V.
MARGO DEHOYOS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 312th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 2019-20442 & 2019-20442A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In these appeals, appellant seeks to challenge three orders. In appeal number
01-26-00062-CV, appellant challenges (1) the trial court’s final judgment in trial
court cause number 2019-20442, signed December 11, 2025; (2) and a post-
judgment temporary order in the same cause, signed January 9, 2026. In appeal
number 01-26-00067-CV, appellant challenges the trial court’s order granting a
petition for writ of habeas corpus in related trial court cause number 2019-20442A.
The record reflects that the trial court granted appellant a new trial on
December 19, 2025, and signed a written order to that effect on January 28, 2026.
That order expressly set aside the December 11, 2025 final judgment that appellant
seeks to appeal. The trial court further stated that the temporary orders signed
January 9, 2026, would remain in effect. Because the trial court granted a new trial
and vacated the December 11, 2025 judgment, that judgment is no longer
appealable. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex.
2005). The January 9, 2026 temporary order is interlocutory and not appealable.
See In re T.R.L., 654 S.W.3d 16, 19 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no
pet.). Finally, we also lack jurisdiction over appellant’s appeal of the trial court’s
order granting habeas corpus relief. See Maadani v. Ward, 611 S.W.3d 460, 461
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.). Accordingly, this Court lacks
jurisdiction over the appeal of all three challenged orders and must dismiss the
appeals for want of jurisdiction.
We notified appellant that the appeals were subject to dismissal unless he
demonstrated grounds for this Court’s continuing jurisdiction. He did not do so.
Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction and dismiss all
pending motions as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
2
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guiney.
3