in Re Darrell Wayne Ingram ( 2022 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00015-CR
DARRELL WAYNE INGRAM,
Appellant
v.
THE CITY OF ITASCA, TEXAS,
Appellee
From the Itasca Municipal Court
Hill County, Texas
Trial Court No. DU 11 1820
&
No. 10-22-00016-CR
IN RE DARRELL WAYNE INGRAM
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In Cause No. 10-22-00016-CR, Darrell Wayne Ingram, acting pro se, has filed a
petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Hill County District Clerk to file
and transmit a copy of Ingram’s “motion to enter a plea of guilty for time served on
tickets/court fines & fees” to the Itasca Municipal Court to be addressed on the merits.
Ingram has also filed a “Notice of Appeal” in which he states that he moves this Court
“to file this his motion for notice of appeal, pursuant to Rule 25(b), Tex. R. App. Proc.”
The notice of appeal has been filed in Cause No. 10-22-00015-CR. Ingram states in his
petition for writ of mandamus that he “moves this Court to acknowledge the fact that he
did file his motion for notice of appeal in support to give this Court jurisdiction to hear
his ‘motion to enter a plea of guilty for time served on tickets/court fines & fees.’”
We begin by addressing Ingram’s petition for writ of mandamus. We do not have
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless necessary to
enforce our jurisdiction. In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b). Ingram has not shown
that a writ of mandamus directed to the district clerk is necessary to enforce our
jurisdiction. Accordingly, Ingram’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want
of jurisdiction.
We now turn to Ingram’s appeal. Jurisdiction must be expressly given to the
courts of appeals. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Ford,
553 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Waco 2018, orig. proceeding). The standard for
determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the
appeal is authorized by law. Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App.
Ingram v. City of Itasca Page 2
2008); Ford, 553 S.W.3d at 731. Generally, a criminal defendant may only appeal from a
final judgment. State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); see TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (“A defendant in any criminal action has the right of
appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed.”); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 30.00014(a) (“A
defendant has the right of appeal from a judgment or conviction in a municipal court of
record.”).
Here, Ingram’s notice of appeal fails to identify any judgment or order from which
he desires to appeal, and his petition for writ of mandamus indicates that there is no
appealable order or final judgment from which he may appeal. Accordingly, Ingram’s
appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding that we are dismissing this appeal, Ingram may file a motion for
rehearing with this Court within 15 days after this opinion and judgment are rendered if
he believes this opinion and judgment are erroneously based on inaccurate information
or documents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. Moreover, if Ingram desires to have the opinion
and judgment of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that
petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days after either the
day this Court’s judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing is
overruled by this Court. See id. R. 68.2(a).
MATT JOHNSON
Justice
Ingram v. City of Itasca Page 3
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Petition dismissed, appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed February 2, 2022
Do not publish
[OT06]
Ingram v. City of Itasca Page 4