Ex Parte Joanna Catherine Krauss v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-26-00268-CR

___________________________

EX PARTE JOANNA CATHERINE KRAUSS

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2 Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. C-2-W012729-1798402-BP

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Joanna Catherine Krauss, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal the denial of her application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.072. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072. The trial court denied the application on November 10, 2025.1 Krauss filed her notice of appeal on July 15, 2026.

A timely notice of appeal is an essential component of our jurisdiction. Slaton v.

State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). An order denying habeas corpus relief under Article 11.072 is an appealable order from which a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days. Mireles v. State, No. 02-14-00228-CR, 2014 WL 6601964, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Thus, Krauss’s July 15, 2026 notice of appeal is untimely.

After we received Krauss’s notice of appeal, we informed her of our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over her appeal because she did not timely file the

The criminal law magistrate denied Krauss’s application and entered findings 1

of fact and conclusions of law on November 6, 2025. The trial court judge subsequently signed an order adopting the actions of the magistrate on November 10, 2025. See Ex parte Sinclair, 693 S.W.3d 346, 357–60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024) (stating that “only a written order of the trial court judge . . . will serve as an appealable order” and holding that court of appeals did not acquire jurisdiction from magistrate’s written order).

3

notice of appeal.2 We warned her that this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless she filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Krauss filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

Because Krauss’s appeal was untimely and because a timely notice of appeal is an essential component of our jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 43.2(f); Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Mireles, 2014 WL 6601964, at *1–2.

Per Curiam

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

Delivered: August 13, 2026

2 Krauss’s notice of appeal was due on December 10, 2025. See Tex. R. App. P.

26.2(a)(1). Our jurisdiction letter incorrectly stated that Krauss’s notice of appeal was due on February 9, 2026. Nevertheless, Krauss’s July 15, 2026 notice of appeal was not timely filed. See id.