Jorge Arellano v. State ( 2019 )

NUMBER 13-18-00672-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
JORGE ARELLANO, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 357th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
Appellant Jorge Arellano, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from trial
cause number 06-CR-770-E in the 357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. In
his notice of appeal, appellant did not identify a specific judgment or order subject to
appeal, but instead contended that the judge of the trial court was “indifferent” to his
request for DNA testing under Article 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01–.05 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). On
December 11, 2018, 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 has not corrected the defect.
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 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).
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.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal and the
2
matters before the Court, is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this
Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters here. Because there is no appealable order, we
DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions, if any, are likewise
DISMISSED.
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
24th day of January, 2019.
3