Grable, Charles Lee v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 25, 2003
• Docket: 14-03-00938-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 25, 2003

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 25, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00938-CR

CHARLES LEE GRABLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 764,539

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant=s appeal from his conviction was dismissed on May 16, 2003, in cause number 14-02-335-CR, because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.  Appellant has now filed an appeal in the same trial court cause number, but challenging the trial court=s refusal to rule on appellant=s APetition for Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment.@  On September 4, 2003, this court advised appellant that we have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments of conviction.  Accordingly, we advised appellant that his appeal would be dismissed unless any party filed a response on or before September 14, 2003.  On September 16, 2003, appellant filed a motion to hold the appeal in abeyance or to take jurisdiction by operation of law.  Appellant=s response does not demonstrate that we have jurisdiction.

Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction.  Workman v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961);  McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.App.‑‑Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).  The exceptions include:  (1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, TEX.R.APP. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161;  and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex.App.‑‑Dallas 1998, no pet.);  McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.

Because appellant=s appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction.

            Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed September 25, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Hudson, and Fowler.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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