Cedric Charles Figgs v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 16, 2011
Docket14-11-00441-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Cedric Charles Figgs v. State (Cedric Charles Figgs v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cedric Charles Figgs v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 16, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

___________________

NO. 14-11-00441-CR

CEDRIC CHARLES FIGGS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 21st District Court

Washington County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15,824

MEMORANDUM  OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from the denial of appellant’s “motion to dismiss prosecution.”  The record does not contain a final judgment of conviction.  The trial court entered a certification of defendant’s right of appeal in which the court certified that “[t]here being no final judgment or final order signed by this [court] and there being no Interlocutory right to appeal, the [court] finds Defendant has no right to appeal at this time.”  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) and (d).  The record supports the trial court’s certification.  See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Generally, an appellate court has jurisdiction only to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction.  Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161  (Tex. App.CFort Worth 1996, no pet.).  Exceptions include: (1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, Tex. R. App. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.CDallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. 

The denial of a motion to dismiss is not a separately appealable order.  Because we have no jurisdiction, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Brown, and Christopher.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dears v. State
154 S.W.3d 610 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Workman v. State
343 S.W.2d 446 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1961)
Wright v. State
969 S.W.2d 588 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Kirk v. State
942 S.W.2d 624 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)
McKown v. State
915 S.W.2d 160 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cedric Charles Figgs v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cedric-charles-figgs-v-state-texapp-2011.