James Henry Aduddle v. State

Opinion issued October 7, 2004  

In The

Court of Appeals

For The  

First District of Texas

____________

NOS. 01-04-00848-CR

          01-04-00849-CR  

          01-04-00850-CR  

____________

JAMES HENRY ADUDDLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

  On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 36,729, 36,730, and 36,731

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant, James Henry Aduddle, filed a pro se motion in the trial court for leave to file post-conviction petitions for writ of habeas corpus in excess of the page limit in the above-referenced cause numbers. The trial court denied the motion on July 22, 2004. On July 30, 2004, appellant filed pro se notices of appeal.

               We hold that we are without jurisdiction over these appeals. Former presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, John F. Onion, Jr., sitting by assignment, stated the rule well in Ex parte Shumake, 953 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.), as follows:

Generally, we have jurisdiction in criminal cases only where there has been a judgment of conviction. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (citing Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961)). A court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by statute. See Ex parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Emerson v. Borland, 838 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ).

Id., at 844 (Onion, J.) (Retired). We know of no statute granting this Court jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a request to exceed the page limit in a writ petition.

               Therefore, we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Bland.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).