Texas = Judiciary Online

Trial Court Cause No.=20 2006-76124

MEMORANDUM=20 OPINION

=20 Appellant, Leiroi Daniels, appeals from = an=20 interlocutory order striking his petition in intervention. Specifically, Daniels = contends that=20 the trial court erred in striking his original answer as the = registered=20 owner of the vehicle in this case, and because the trial court = struck his=20 answer, he was denied his right to make an appearance in the = forfeiture=20 proceeding. Because = the=20 record before this court fails to establish that we have = jurisdiction over=20 the appeal, we dismiss the appeal. =20

Background

=20 On October 30, 2006, the State seized the vehicle in this = case, a=20 Mercedes S500, because it had allegedly been used in several = aggravated=20 robberies prior to that date. =20 In addition, at the time of the seizure, police officers = found one=20 kilogram of cocaine in the car. =20 The car was registered to Angel Rodriguez and Olga Joffre, = and it=20 was in their possession at the time the police seized it. After officers seized = the car,=20 Daniels notified the Houston Police Department and the District = Attorney=92s=20 office that he was the owner of the car. Daniels claims title to = the car,=20 based upon a contract between Rodriguez and Daniels that = transferred=20 ownership of the car to Daniels in exchange for legal=20 representation.

On November 29, 2006, = the State=20 filed a notice of seizure and intended forfeiture, claiming that = the=20 vehicle was subject to forfeiture because it constituted = contraband. The State listed only = Rodriguez=20 and Joffre as respondents. = Daniels filed an answer, alleging that he is the owner of = the=20 vehicle and that he has a justiciable interest in the = lawsuit. The State filed a Motion = to Strike=20 Daniels=92 answer, alleging that Daniels did not perfect his title = in the=20 automobile until after the date of the seizure. After a hearing on the = motion, the=20 trial court struck Daniels=92 answer.

Analysis

Daniels seeks to = appeal the=20 trial court=92s order striking his original answer. Generally, appellate = courts have=20 jurisdiction to hear an appeal only if it is from a final = judgment. Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. = Tipps,=20 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex.=20 1992). A final = judgment is=20 one which disposes of all legal issues between all parties.=20 Id.; = Hinde v.=20 Hinde, 701 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Tex. 1985). The=20 record reflects that the trial court has not yet entered a final = judgment=20 in the underlying matter, and no severance order appears in the=20 record. = Therefore, the=20 order striking Daniels=92 intervention is interlocutory.

An appellate court = lacks=20 jurisdiction to immediately review an interlocutory order unless a = statute=20 specifically authorizes an exception to the general rule, which is = that=20 appeals may only be taken from final judgments. Qwest Communications Corp. = v. AT &=20 T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000); Stary v. DeBord, 967 = S.W.2d 352,=20 352=9653 (Tex. 1998); = Metromedia Long Distance, Inc. v. Hughes, 810 S.W.2d 494, = 499 (Tex.=20 App.=97San Antonio 1991, writ denied) (order dismissing or = striking petition=20 in intervention may not be appealed by intervenor before rendition = of=20 final judgment, unless statute explicitly provides for = appeal). As no statute provides = for=20 interlocutory appeal of an order dismissing or striking a petition = in=20 intervention, Daniels may not appeal until the rendition of a = final=20 judgment between the original parties.

Conclusion

=20 We dismiss the appeal for lack of=20 jurisdiction.

&nbs= p; = ; = &= nbsp; &n= bsp; =20 Jane=20 Bland

&nbs= p; = ; = &= nbsp; &n= bsp; =20 Justice

=20

Panel consists of = Chief Justice=20 Radack and Justices Jennings and Bland.