Earnest Johnson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 24, 2024
• Docket: 10-24-00293-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00293-CR No. 10-24-00294-CR

EARNEST JOHNSON, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 18-05306-CRF-272 and 18-04253-CRM-272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In each of these two causes, Appellant Earnest Johnson filed a notice of appeal in

which he stated that he was appealing from “a final judgment of Guilty”; however, there

are no final judgments in these cases. Therefore, we will dismiss these appeals for want

of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction must be expressly given to the courts of appeals. Ragston v. State, 424

S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Ford, 553 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Waco 2018, orig. proceeding). The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the

appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law. Abbott v. State,

271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Ford, 553 S.W.3d at 731.

Article 44.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides, “A defendant in any

criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed.” TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. This statutory right of appeal has been interpreted as

allowing appeal only from a final judgment. See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4

(Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The courts of appeals therefore do not have jurisdiction to review

interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been otherwise expressly granted by law.

Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Here, the trial court clerk has informed the Court that there are no final judgments

in these cases. We therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02; Sellers, 790 S.W.2d at 321 n.4.

In letters dated September 24, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified Johnson that

these appeals were subject to being dismissed because they did not appear to be appeals

from final judgments. The Clerk of the Court further notified Johnson that unless he

showed grounds for continuing these appeals within fourteen days of the date of the

letters, the appeals would be dismissed. Johnson has filed a response, but he has not

shown grounds for continuing these appeals.

For these reasons, these appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Johnson v. State Page 2 MATT JOHNSON Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray*, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith *(Chief Justice Gray dissents.) Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed October 24, 2024 Do not publish [CR25]

Johnson v. State Page 3