The Texas Court of Appeals has dismissed appeals filed by Diego Raoul Goding against Margo Dehoyos. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeals due to a new trial being granted in the underlying case. This decision affects Goding's attempts to challenge previous court orders and highlights the complexities of legal appeals.

In the case, Goding sought to appeal three orders related to his legal disputes with Dehoyos. Specifically, he aimed to contest a final judgment issued on December 11, 2025, and a temporary order from January 9, 2026. Additionally, he challenged a separate order granting a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. However, the court found that these appeals were not valid due to the trial court's decision to grant a new trial.

Background

Diego Raoul Goding and Margo Dehoyos were involved in a legal dispute that originated in the Harris County District Court. The case number for the trial court proceedings is 2019-20442. Goding's appeals stem from a series of orders issued by the trial court, including a final judgment and subsequent temporary orders.

The legal battle escalated when the trial court granted Goding a new trial on December 19, 2025. This decision was formalized with a written order signed on January 28, 2026. By granting a new trial, the court effectively set aside the previous final judgment that Goding was attempting to appeal.

The Ruling

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over Goding's appeals. The court stated, "Because the trial court granted a new trial and vacated the December 11, 2025 judgment, that judgment is no longer appealable." This ruling was made by a panel consisting of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guiney.

Furthermore, the court noted that the January 9, 2026, temporary order was interlocutory and also not subject to appeal. The court emphasized its lack of jurisdiction over the appeal of the trial court’s order granting habeas corpus relief, stating, "Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal of all three challenged orders and must dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction."

Impact

The dismissal of these appeals carries significant implications for both Goding and Dehoyos. For Goding, the ruling means he cannot contest the earlier orders in a higher court, and he must proceed with the new trial granted by the trial court. This outcome underscores the importance of understanding the procedural aspects of legal appeals and the impact of trial court decisions on the ability to seek further judicial review.

For Dehoyos, the dismissal provides a degree of relief, as it allows her to move forward without the burden of ongoing appeals from Goding. The ruling also serves as a reminder of the legal principle that a new trial can reset the status of previous judgments, making them non-appealable.

What's Next

Goding's options for further legal action may be limited following this dismissal. The court's ruling indicates that he may need to focus on the new trial set by the trial court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or potential appeals.