eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2019-09

Ex Parte Bobbi Battishia White ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •        TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00594-CR
NO. 03-19-00595-CR
Ex parte Bobbi Battishia White
FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
NO. 76731 & 76735, THE HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Bobbi Battishia White filed these appeals as to her ongoing criminal prosecutions.
The clerk’s records contain the trial court’s certifications that “No order exists upon which an
appeal may be predicated.”        See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a) (requiring trial court to enter
certification of defendant’s right of appeal each time it enters judgment of guilt or other
appealable order), (d) (requiring that record include trial court’s certification of defendant’s right
of appeal), see also
    id. R. 27.1(b) (providing 
    that notice of appeal is ineffective when filed before
trial court’s finding of guilt or its receipt of jury verdict). Without a judgment of conviction or
other appealable order, we lack jurisdiction to consider these appeals. See Taylor v. State,
    268 S.W.3d 752
    , 755-56 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. ref’d); see also Perez v. State, Nos. 03-
15-00412-CR, 03-15-00413-CR, 03-15-00414-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9157, at *2
(Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. 1
__________________________________________
Gisela D. Triana, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: September 6, 2019
Do Not Publish
1
In the alternative, to the extent that White’s notices of appeal could be construed as
petitions for writs of mandamus asking this Court to compel the district court to rule on White’s
applications for writs of habeas corpus, White has failed to provide this Court with an adequate
record demonstrating her entitlement to the extraordinary relief of mandamus. See, e.g., In re
Blakeney,
    254 S.W.3d 659
    , 662 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Keeter,
    134 S.W.3d 250
    , 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal,
    96 S.W.3d 708
    , 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Bates,
    65 S.W.3d 133
    , 135-36
(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State,
    832 S.W.2d 424
    , 426
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we would deny the
petitions.
2