Opinion issued July 14, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-25-00662-CV
SIXTO P. MEJIA, Appellant
V.
DIGNA BERNAL, Appellee
On Appeal from the 310th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2019-07367
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Sixto P. Mejia filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s Order
Enforcing Temporary Orders and Division of Property by Contempt.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Discussion
“[C]ourts always have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction.”
Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 146 n.14 (Tex. 2012) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Royal Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Ragsdale,
273 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (holding that
jurisdiction is fundamental in nature and cannot be ignored). Whether we have
jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo. See Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v.
Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007).
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v.
Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An appellate court has jurisdiction
to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order only if a statute explicitly
authorizes an interlocutory appeal. CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48
(Tex. 2011); see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing
appeals from certain interlocutory orders).
Appellant seeks to appeal from the trial court’s Order Enforcing Temporary
Orders and Division of Property by Contempt in which the trial court held that
Appellant had violated the “Temporary Orders and Final Decree of Divorce” entered
on October 8, 2021, in Cause No. 2019-07367, in the 257th District Court, Harris
County, Texas. The trial court held that Appellant violated the decree in several
respects, and further that Appellant’s failure to comply with the decree “constitute[d]
2
criminal contemp.” On May 21, 2026, this Court advised Appellant that his appeal
from the trial court’s Order Enforcing Temporary Orders and Division of Property
by Contempt was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the order from
which he appeals does not appear to be a final, appealable order.
“[D]ecisions in contempt proceedings cannot be reviewed on appeal . . . even
when appealed along with a judgment that is appealable.” Ramirez v. Sanchez, No.
01-21-00417-CV, 2023 WL 2919545, at *12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr.
13, 2023, no pet.) (quoting In re Office of Atty. Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 915
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding) (explaining why contempt
judgments are not appealable and must be attacked by petition for writ of habeas
corpus or petition for writ of mandamus). We therefore informed Appellant that his
appeal was subject to dismissal unless, within ten days of the date of the notice, he
filed a written response demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over his
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed a motion for extension to respond
to our notice. We granted the motion giving Appellant until June 10 to respond.
Instead of filing a response explaining why we have jurisdiction over his
appeal, Appellant filed a motion requesting that we order the parties to attend
mediation and a motion for extension of time to file a “motion for rehearing.”
Appellant has not filed a docketing statement,1 and his request for mediation does
1
The docketing statement was due on September 11, 2025.
3
not change the fact that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal. And because no opinion
or disposition has issued in this appeal, there is nothing for us to consider on
rehearing. We thus deny Appellant’s request for mediation, and we dismiss his
motion for extension of time as premature.
To date, Appellant has not filed a response to our notice establishing we have
jurisdiction over his appeal of the trial court’s Order Enforcing Temporary Orders
and Division of Property by Contempt. Because we lack jurisdiction to review
contempt orders by appeal, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); see also Ramirez, 2023 WL 2919545, at *12 (dismissing
portion of appeal relating to contempt proceeding for lack of jurisdiction). We
dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guiney.
4