Wayne Allen Stuckey v. State ( 2008 )

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-08-00176-CR

No. 10-08-00177-CR

Wayne Allen Stuckey,

                                                                                    Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                                    Appellee

From the 82nd District Court

Robertson County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 03-06-17492-CR and 03-10-17578-CR

memorandum  Opinion

In these two appeals, judgments revoking Appellant’s community supervision were rendered on January 12, 2005. Appellant’s notices of appeal in each case were filed on May 21, 2008.  Each notice states that it is an appeal of the trial court’s April 17, 2008 “Order Denying Motion to Return Seized Property” regarding the collection of court costs, fees and/or fines by having them withdrawn from Appellant’s inmate trust account under Government Code section 501.014(e).  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.014(e) (Vernon 2004).

            We have held that such an order in a criminal cause is not an appealable order.  See Zink v. State, 244 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.) (holding that appellate court lacked jurisdiction because order to withdraw money from inmate trust account was not appealable order); Philips v. State, 244 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.) (same); see also Gross v. State, --- S.W.3d ---, 2007 WL 2089365 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 23, 2007, no pet. h.) (same); Abdullah v. State, 211 S.W.3d 938 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (treating appeal of similar order as civil appeal); cf. In re Keeling, 227 S.W.3d 391, 395 (Tex. App.—Waco June 6, 2007, orig. proceeding) (granting mandamus relief on similar order for payment of court costs out of inmate trust fund account).  We thus reject Appellant’s assertion that his appeals are civil appeals.  See, e.g., Abdullah, 211 S.W.3d at 940-43 (treating appeal of similar order as civil appeal).

We have jurisdiction in a criminal case only when expressly provided by law.  Kelly v. State, 151 S.W.3d 683, 685 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, no pet.). No statute appears to authorize an appeal from an order denying a postjudgment motion to return funds acquired by the State under a section 501.014(e) order.  We thus lack jurisdiction.  These appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Vance, and

            Justice Reyna

Appeals dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 6, 2008

Do not publish

[CR25]