Ex Parte Brian Cole v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: January 8, 2026
• Docket: 02-25-00368-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-25-00367-CR No. 02-25-00368-CR ___________________________

EX PARTE BRIAN COLE

On Appeal from the 485th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 1787785, 1788991

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brian Cole filed these appeals complaining that the trial court had not ruled on

his pretrial applications for habeas corpus. However, we do not have jurisdiction over

an appeal unless a trial court has signed an appealable order. See Ahmad v. State,

158 S.W.3d 525, 526 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref’d) (noting that a criminal

defendant may generally appeal only from a final judgment); see also McCray v. State,

No. 02-24-00179-CR, 2024 WL 3195116, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 27,

2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (noting that “a final

judgment or an appealable order is necessary for this court to obtain jurisdiction”);

Ex parte Mims, Nos. 02-24-00324-CR, 02-24-00325-CR, 02-24-00326-CR,

2025 WL 647354, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 27, 2025, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication) (discussing when intermediate appellate court has

jurisdiction over appeal from order denying pretrial writ of habeas corpus).

Here, the trial court has not signed any final judgments or appealable

interlocutory orders. Accordingly, we notified Cole of our concern that we lacked

jurisdiction over these appeals, and we cautioned him that we would dismiss the

appeals unless he or another party filed a response showing grounds to continue

them.

In response, Cole filed a “Motion to Invoke Jurisdiction and for Abatement to

Compel Ruling on Pretrial Habeas Corpus Applications,” which we construe as his

jurisdictional response. The response states that we have appellate jurisdiction under

2 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31, see Tex. R. App. P. 31.1–31.4, but it does not

show any grounds for continuing the appeals when the trial court has not signed any

appealable orders.

Cole’s response also cites Texas Government Code Section 22.221 and asks

this court to abate the appeals, compel the trial court to hold a hearing, and rule

on his habeas applications within thirty days. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.

§ 22.221 (providing intermediate appellate courts with authority to issue writs of

mandamus). Cole has not filed a petition for writ of mandamus and has not asked us

to construe his notices of appeal or response as such a petition. However, to the

extent that Cole’s response constitutes a request that this court grant mandamus relief,

we deny the request because his filings in this court do not meet the requirements of

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3, 52.7(a); Thomas v. Tex.

Dep’t of Crim. Just.—Institutional Div., 3 S.W.3d 665, 667 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999,

no pet.).

Because there does not appear to be any written, signed order from which to

appeal, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); see

also Ex parte Yezak, No. 03-22-00582-CR, 2022 WL 15526491, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Austin Oct. 28, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing

appeal that sought review of trial court’s failure to rule on habeas application).

3 Per Curiam

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

Delivered: January 8, 2026