Molly Boots v. State

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-19-00315-CR
No. 02-19-00316-CR
___________________________
MOLLY BOOTS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 1557065D, 1508523D
Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Molly Boots, who has appointed counsel but filed a pro se notice of
appeal, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s “Order For Competency
Examination.” We informed Boots by letter that it appeared that she was not
attempting to appeal from a final judgment or from an otherwise appealable order and
notified her that we would dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction unless she
showed grounds for continuing them. Boots has not responded.
In a criminal case, we generally have jurisdiction only when 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.). “We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory
orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted to us by law.” Id. The order
about which Boots complains is not a final judgment of conviction or an appealable
interlocutory order. See, e.g., Morales v. State, 830 S.W.2d 139, 140 (Tex. Crim. App.
1992). Therefore, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.
P. 43.2(f); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: October 17, 2019
2