Gabriel P. Salas v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-22-00075-CR

___________________________

GABRIEL P. SALAS, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

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

Trial Court No. 1714198D

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Gabriel P. Salas has filed a pro se notice of appeal,1 but there is no record of a final judgment or an appealable order. Because a final judgment or an appealable order is necessary for this court to obtain jurisdiction, see McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam), we notified Appellant of our concern that his appeal was premature. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a), 27.1(b). We warned that we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless, within ten days, Appellant or any other party furnished this court with a signed copy of a final judgment or an appealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. More than ten days have passed, and we have not received a response.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P.

43.2(f); see Richardson v. State, Nos. 02-21-00191-CR, 02-21-00192-CR, 2022 WL 557427, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 24, 2022, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: June 16, 2022

1 The only document attached to Appellant’s notice of appeal was an order appointing an attorney to represent him. Cf. Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981) (recognizing that “[t]here is no right to hybrid representation”).