Deylan Christopher Walker v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 21, 2022
• Docket: 05-22-00165-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismiss and Opinion Filed March 21, 2022

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00165-CR

DEYLAN CHRISTOPHER WALKER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2-18-0986

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Molberg, and Pedersen, III Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III Deylan Christopher Walker filed his pro se notice of appeal on March 1, 2022,

seeking to appeal the “judgment signed by the Court on February 10, 2022.”

Concluding we do not have jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

This Court may only review criminal appeals authorized by statute. Ragston

v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 44.02 (authorizing defendant’s right to appeal “under the rules hereinafter

prescribed”). Generally, criminal defendants may appeal only from final judgments.

See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Unless a

statute expressly grants a right of appeal, interlocutory orders are not appealable. See Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52; Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991).

In this case, appellant seeks to appeal the trial court’s ruling on appellant’s

February 10, 2022 “First Amended Emergency Motion to Oppose Motion to

Withdraw & Sanctions Against Attorney Robert Gregg & Request for Hearing on

Motion to Withdraw.” The trial court’s February 10, 2022 order denying appellant’s

motion is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order. See Wright

v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.) (listing appealable

interlocutory orders and concluding determination to revoke bond not appealable);

Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 908 n.1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.)

(listing appealable interlocutory orders). Thus, we have no jurisdiction to consider

appellant’s appeal. See Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52; Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d at 794.

And in the absence of jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal without taking further

action. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

/Bill Pedersen, III// BILL PEDERSEN, III 220165f.u05 JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

–2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

DEYLAN CHRISTOPHER On Appeal from the 439th Judicial WALKER, Appellant District Court, Rockwall County, Texas No. 05-22-00165-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 2-18-0986. Opinion delivered by Justice THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Pedersen, III. Justices Schenck and Molberg participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 21st day of March, 2022.

–3–