Earnest Johnson v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-24-00293-CR
No. 10-24-00294-CR
EARNEST JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 272nd District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 18-05306-CRF-272
and 18-04253-CRM-272
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In each of these two causes, Appellant Earnest Johnson filed a notice of appeal in
which he stated that he was appealing from “a final judgment of Guilty”; however, there
are no final judgments in these cases. Therefore, we will dismiss these appeals for want
of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction must be expressly given to the courts of appeals. Ragston v. State, 424
S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Ford, 553 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Waco
2018, orig. proceeding). The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the
appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law. Abbott v. State,
271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Ford, 553 S.W.3d at 731.
Article 44.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides, “A defendant in any
criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed.” TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. This statutory right of appeal has been interpreted as
allowing appeal only from a final judgment. See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4
(Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The courts of appeals therefore do not have jurisdiction to review
interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been otherwise expressly granted by law.
Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Here, the trial court clerk has informed the Court that there are no final judgments
in these cases. We therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02; Sellers, 790 S.W.2d at 321 n.4.
In letters dated September 24, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified Johnson that
these appeals were subject to being dismissed because they did not appear to be appeals
from final judgments. The Clerk of the Court further notified Johnson that unless he
showed grounds for continuing these appeals within fourteen days of the date of the
letters, the appeals would be dismissed. Johnson has filed a response, but he has not
shown grounds for continuing these appeals.
For these reasons, these appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Johnson v. State Page 2
MATT JOHNSON
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray*,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
*(Chief Justice Gray dissents.)
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed October 24, 2024
Do not publish
[CR25]
Johnson v. State Page 3