Alice Vega Fiala v. State

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-17-00170-CR
Alice Vega FIALA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. NM 308410
Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 26, 2017
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 24, 2017. In her notice of appeal, appellant
states she is appealing “the denial of her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS” and references a jury
trial that was held on March 22 through March 23 of 2017. A review of the clerk’s record shows
appellant was charged by complaint with theft under $2,500 enhanced. The record also shows the
trial court granted a motion for a psychiatric examination to determine appellant’s competency.
The clerk’s record includes a judgment of competency dated March 23, 2017. The judgment
04-17-00170-CR
indicates a jury found appellant competent to stand trial. The clerk’s record does not include any
other judgment or order, and it appears the theft charge remains pending. 1
In general, we have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in a criminal case only when there
has been a final judgment of conviction. See Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 752, 755–56 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2008, pet. ref’d); Ahmad v. State, 158 S.W.3d 525, 527 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
2004, pet. ref’d). Appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless
that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991); Taylor, 268 S.W.3d at 755–56. Article 46B.011 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure (“the Code”) expressly provides that a defendant may not “make an interlocutory appeal
relating to a determination or ruling under Article 46B.005.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
46B.011 (West 2006). Article 46B.005 of the Code outlines when a trial court must hold a hearing
to determine whether a defendant is incompetent to stand trial. See id. art. 46B.005. A hearing
held to determine competency is ancillary to prosecution of the criminal case, and a trial court’s
order of competency is not a final, appealable judgment. See Ortega v. State, 82 S.W.3d 748, 749
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); see also Queen v. State, 212 S.W.3d 619, 622
(Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.) (stating interlocutory appeal may not be had from orders
entered under chapter 46B, subchapter D, i.e., articles 46B.071–.090, of the code of criminal
procedure); Hart v. State, 173 S.W.3d 131, 143 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.) (stating
jury’s determination of competency to stand trial is not final, appealable judgment).
Based on the foregoing, it appeared from the record before us that the judgment appellant
is attempting to appeal relates to a determination of competency, which is a ruling under Article
1
The clerk’s record also includes a trial court certification in which the trial court indicates this matter “is a
determination of competency to stand trial rendered by a jury and the defendant has no right to an interlocutory appeal
– 46B.011 C.C.P.”
-2-
04-17-00170-CR
46.005. It therefore appeared that we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal. As a result, we ordered
appellant to file in this court, on or before June 5, 2017, a response showing cause why this appeal
should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In our order, we advised appellant that if no
satisfactory response was filed within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed for want
of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). On June 2, 2017, appellant requested an extension of
time to file her response, and we granted appellant’s request, ordering appellant to file her response
on or before July 7, 2017. Thereafter, appellant timely filed a response, arguing the Texas Code
of Criminal Procedure as applied is unconstitutional and “deprives appellant of equal protection
and due process of law.” In her response, appellant explains why the trial court erred in rendering
an order declaring her competent to stand trial. However, at no point does appellant show why the
order declaring her competent to stand trial is a final and appealable order.
Because appellant has not been finally convicted and sentenced, we therefore dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish
-3-