Juan Nepomuceno Rodriguez v. State ( 2015 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00304-CR
JUAN NEPOMUCENO RODRIGUEZ APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1324633D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Juan Nepomuceno Rodriguez attempts to appeal the trial court’s
order finding him incompetent to stand trial and committing him to a maximum
security unit of a state mental health facility. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
art. 46B.005 (West 2006), art. 46B.073(c) (West Supp. 2014). According to his
notice of appeal, Rodriguez is not appealing the trial court’s incompetency finding
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
but is appealing his placement in a maximum security unit of a state mental
health facility; whether following his competency evaluation, his bond should
have been held insufficient prior to the competency hearing; and whether he
should have been enrolled in a competency restoration program pursuant to
article 46B.072 as recommended by the mental health professional who
performed the psychological evaluation on him and testified at his competency
hearing in the trial court. See id. arts. 46B.071(a), 46B.072, 46B.073(c) (West
Supp. 2014).
On September 15, 2015, we notified Rodriguez of our concern that we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court had not entered any
appealable orders, noting that we generally have jurisdiction to consider an
appeal in a criminal case only when there has been a judgment of conviction.
See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no
pet.). We informed Rodriguez that the appeal would be dismissed unless he or
any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds to
continue the appeal. Rodriguez’s appellate counsel filed a response stating that
her “diligent investigation regarding [grounds for appellate jurisdiction] has
revealed that there are no orders entered by the trial court which are eligible for
interlocutory appeal” and that in her “professional opinion, there are no grounds
at this time to support a direct appeal in this matter.”
Article 46B.011 provides that a defendant may not “make an interlocutory
appeal relating to a determination or ruling under Article 46B.005.” Tex. Code
2
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.011 (West 2006). The order Rodriguez is attempting to
appeal relates to a determination or ruling under article 46B.005 and, thus, is not
subject to immediate appeal. See id.; see also Queen v. State, 212 S.W.3d 619,
622 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.) (stating interlocutory appeal may not be
had from orders entered under chapter 46B, subchapter D, i.e., articles 46B.071–
.090, of the code of criminal procedure). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: November 12, 2015
3