Grable, Charles Lee v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 29, 2004
• Docket: 14-03-01369-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 29, 2004

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 29, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NOS. 14-03-01264-CR;

          14-03-01369-CR;

         14-03-01370-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.  On September 25, 2003, this Court dismissed an appeal from the trial court=s refusal to rule on appellant=s APetition for Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment,@ holding that the appeal did not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction.  Appellant has now filed three more appeals from the same trial court cause,  two of which challenge the trial court=s refusal to rule on appellant=s APetition for Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment,@ and one that challenges the trial court=s denial of appellant=s motion to recuse.  On December 31, 2003, this court advised appellant of our intent to dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.  On January 9, 2004, appellant filed a response.  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 appeals do 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 appeals are ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed January 29, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Hudson, and Fowler.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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