Lee Garner v. State ( 2019 )

NUMBER 13-19-00272-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
LEE GARNER, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 24th District Court
of Calhoun County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
Appellant Lee Garner, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from cause
number 88-4-3684 in the District Court of Calhoun County, Texas. Appellant’s notice of
appeal did not specify that he was appealing from a judgment or other appealable order
and stated only that he wished to appeal his “case.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2(c)(2).
On June 12, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that
there was not a final, appealable judgment in this case and requested correction of this
defect if it could be done. The Clerk notified appellant that the appeal would be
dismissed if the defect was not cured. Appellant filed a pro se response to the Court’s
directive, but his response fails to provide grounds to continue the appeal.
In Texas, appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they are specifically
authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011);
see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. Generally, a state appellate court only has
jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final
judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961);
Ex parte Ragston, 402 S.W.3d 472, 477 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013), aff'd sub
nom. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); McKown v. State, 915
S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). The courts of appeals do not
have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal appeal absent express
statutory authority. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);
Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 907 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). Exceptions
to the general rule include: (1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community
supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from
the denial of a motion to reduce bond, TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161;
and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969
S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. See
also Bridle, 16 S.W.3d at 908 n.1.
2
The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal and the
matter before the Court, is of the opinion that there is not a current appealable order and
this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. And, to the extent that appellant may be
attempting to appeal his judgment of conviction and sentence rendered on August 1,
1988, we lack jurisdiction over the untimely appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1),(2); Slaton
v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519,
522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Pickens v. State, 105 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Tex. App.—Austin
2003, no pet.).
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions, if any, are
likewise DISMISSED.
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
18th day of July, 2019.
3