Jose Luis Aguilar v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             NUMBER 13-13-00534-CR
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    ____________________________________________________________
    JOSE LUIS AGUILAR,                                                       APPELLANT,
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                               APPELLEE.
    ____________________________________________________________
    On Appeal from the 36th District Court
    of San Patricio County, Texas.
    ____________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes
    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
    Appellant, Jose Luis Aguilar, attempted to appeal this Court’s denial of his petition
    for writ of mandamus. See generally In re Aguilar, No. 13-13-00467-CR, 
    2013 WL 4734773
    , at **1–3 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Sept. 3, 2013, orig. proceeding) (per curiam
    mem. op.). On October 3, 2013, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared
    that the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order and
    requested correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed.
    Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s directive.
    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, 
    170 Tex. Crim. 621
    , 
    343 S.W.2d 446
    , 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 
    915 S.W.2d 160
    , 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, 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
    .
    The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the
    opinion that it lacks jurisdiction over this attempted appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is
    DISMISSED.
    PER CURIAM
    Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    Delivered and filed the 16th
    day of January, 2014.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-13-00534-CR

Filed Date: 1/16/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015