Rene Livas v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

NUMBER 13-22-00301-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
RENE LIVAS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 347th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
Appellant Rene Livas, proceeding pro se, filed a “Motion [t]o Appeal for Defendant
Property” regarding the return of his vehicle, a 2007 Tahoe, and $3,809.00 in cash, which
were apparently seized as contraband in trial court cause number 21FC-6162-H in the
347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. We construed this pleading as a notice of
appeal. See Harkcom v. State, 484 S.W.3d 432, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (stating that
a notice of appeal “is sufficient if it shows the party’s desire to appeal from the judgment
or other appealable order”). On June 30, 2022, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant’s
appointed counsel 1 that it appeared that there was no final, appealable order. The Clerk
requested appellant to correct this defect, if possible, and notified appellant that the
appeal would be subject to dismissal if the defect was not corrected. See TEX. R. APP. P.
37.1. Appellant did not correct the defect or otherwise respond to the Clerk’s directives.
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 (1961); Skillern v. State, 355 S.W.3d 262, 266 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d); Saliba v. State, 45 S.W.3d 329, 329 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2001, no pet.); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
1996, no pet.). Exceptions to this 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 generally Saliba, 45 S.W.3d at 329; Bridle v. State, 16
S.W.3d 906, 907–08 n.1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.).
1 Generally, a defendant in a criminal law matter is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Tracy
v. State, 597 S.W.3d 502, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020); Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2001) (orig. proceeding) (en banc) (per curiam); Justice v. State, 532 S.W.3d 862, 866 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.). Given our disposition of this appeal, we need not address the application
of this doctrine here.
2
The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal, related
documents, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over the
appeal. See Workman, 343 S.W.2d at 447; Skillern, 355 S.W.3d at 266; Saliba, 45 S.W.3d
at 329. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed on the
11th day of August, 2022.
3