# Venky Venkatraman v. Texas Board of Law Examiners

> Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 31, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9976889

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- **Decided:** May 31, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9976889

## Opinion text

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00107-CV

Venky Venkatraman, Appellant

v.

Texas Board of Law Examiners, Appellee

FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-22-000521, THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Venky Venkatraman attempts to appeal from an order signed by the trial court on

January 26, 2024, that denied his “Motion for Judicial Review of Decision by the [Texas Board

of Law Examiners] Denying Plaintiff’s Petition for Redetermination.” The trial court rendered

a final judgment in this same underlying cause on August 19, 2022. No party filed a motion

thereafter that would have extended the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction. See Tex. R. Civ.

P. 329b(e), (g). Therefore, the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction expired on September 19, 2022—

thirty days after the final judgment was signed. See id. R. 329b(d).

After the expiration of its plenary jurisdiction, a trial court can only correct

clerical errors in a judgment by issuing a judgment nunc pro tunc. See Escobar v. Escobar,

711 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Tex. 1986). A judgment or order rendered after plenary power has

expired is void. In re Brookshire Grocery Co., 250 S.W.3d 66, 68–69 (Tex. 2008); In re
Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000). While it is wholly unnecessary to

appeal from a void judgment or order, it is nevertheless settled that an appeal may be taken and

the appellate court in such a proceeding may declare the judgment or order void. State ex rel.

Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995); Bahar v. Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 03-07-

00469-CV, 2009 WL 2341864, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin July 28, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

(holding that trial court’s order denying motion to vacate judgment signed after plenary power

had expired was void because trial court lacked jurisdiction to further rule).

Because the trial court’s plenary power had expired when it signed the order at

issue, the trial court had lost jurisdiction to address the merits of Venkatraman’s motion and

should have dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Bahar, 2009 WL 2341864,

at *3. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the motion, the order

denying the motion is void. See id. We accordingly vacate the order and dismiss this appeal for

want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(e); Bahar, 2009 WL 2341864, at *3.

__________________________________________
Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly

Vacated and Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 31, 2024

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9976889. Public record. Not legal advice.