Russell Jay Reger v. State ( 2021 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00161-CR
___________________________
RUSSELL JAY REGER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 0579930D
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 1996, a jury convicted Russell Jay Reger of murder, and the trial court
sentenced him to life in prison. We affirmed Reger’s conviction on direct appeal. See
Reger v. State, No. 02-96-00217-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 31, 1997, pet. ref’d)
(not designated for publication).
In 2005, Reger moved for postconviction forensic DNA testing. See Reger v.
State, 222 S.W.3d 510, 512 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref’d). See generally Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01–.05. The trial court denied Reger’s motion, and we
affirmed that denial on appeal.1 See Reger, 222 S.W.3d at 515.
Now, Reger, proceeding pro se, appears to assert that we lacked jurisdiction
over those appeals and has filed a “[Second] Amended Notice of Appeal of Lacking
Final Judgment,” attempting to appeal from the “overruling by operation of law” of
“Defendant Reger’s Sworn and Verified Out-of-Time Motion for New Trial with
Omnibus Motions in Arrest of Judgment with Speedy Trial Violation; Nunc Pro
Tunc, and Bill of Exception to Support in Plea of Jurisdiction of Void Interlocutory
Appellate Cause Nos. 02-96-00217-CR and 02-06-00104-CR.”
In the criminal context, our jurisdiction is generally limited to cases in which
the trial court has signed a judgment of conviction. McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160,
161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam). We do not have jurisdiction
1
We docketed this appeal under cause number 02-06-00104-CR.
2
over matters related to postconviction relief2 from an otherwise final felony
conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991) (orig. proceeding); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07; Bd. of Pardons
& Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding). We thus notified Reger of our concern that we
lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We warned him that we could dismiss this appeal for
want of jurisdiction unless he or any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a
response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3.
We have reviewed “Appellant Reger’s Response Showing Grounds for
Continuing Appeal,” as well as “Appellant Reger’s Objections to the Conspired
Denials of Adequate, Meaningful, and Effective Access to the Courts.” Because
neither shows grounds for continuing this appeal, we dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f)
/s/ Elizabeth Kerr
Elizabeth Kerr
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: February 11, 2021
Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs postconviction
2
DNA testing and is “a procedural vehicle for obtaining evidence” to be used in a later
habeas proceeding. In re Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 819, 822 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no
pet.).
3