David Ray Burch v. State of Texas ( 2011 )

Opinion filed September 15, 2011

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-11-00165-CV

                                                    __________

                                   DAVID RAY BURCH, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                      STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                   On Appeal from the 358th District Court

                                                             Ector County, Texas

                                                   Trial Court Cause No. D-24,724

                                            M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Upon receiving the clerk’s record in this cause, it became apparent to this court that no final appealable order had been entered by the trial court. Accordingly, the clerk of this court wrote appellant, informed him that it did not appear that this court had jurisdiction, and requested that appellant respond by August 22, 2011, and show grounds to continue this appeal. We also notified appellant that the appeal may be dismissed pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42. See Rule 42.3. Appellant has responded to our letter with a motion in which he attempts to show grounds to continue this appeal.  In the motion, appellant asserts that he was denied due process and the opportunity to be heard.  

The record shows that appellant did not request any relief from the trial court (via motion or otherwise) after receiving the trial court’s order to withdraw funds from appellant’s inmate trust account and that appellant, instead, filed a notice of appeal.  The order to withdraw funds is not a final, appealable order.  See Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 316 n.1, 321 (Tex. 2009) (“withdrawal order” is actually a notification from the court, not an order); Webb v. State, 324 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, no pet.); Ramirez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, no pet.).  Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments.  Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840-41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001).  No appealable order has been entered in this case. 

Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

                                                                                    PER CURIAM

September 15, 2011

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.