Ex Parte Esteban Cantu ( 2022 )

NUMBER 13-22-00234-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
EX PARTE ESTEBAN CANTU
On appeal from the 92nd District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
Appellant Esteban Cantu, proceeding pro se, attempted to file a notice of appeal
regarding an order denying a pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus in trial court cause
number C-1636-22-A in the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. According to
the documents provided to this Court by the district clerk, however, the trial court had not
yet signed a final, appealable order in this matter.
On May 24, 2022, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant’s retained counsel1 that
it appeared that there was no final, appealable order. We 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 Court’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.).
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
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
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.
GINA M. BENAVIDES
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed on the
11th day of August, 2022.
3