Isaac Gonzalez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 3, 2015
• Docket: 13-15-00334-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-15-00334-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

ISAAC GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE. ____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Victoria County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Isaac Gonzalez, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal the May 20,

2015 decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ denying his petition for writ of

habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in cause

number WR-64,680-03. Specifically, the Court of Criminal Appeals “denied without written order the application for writ of habeas corpus on the findings of the trial court

without a hearing.”

On August 3, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that

the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order, and requested

correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has

failed to respond to the Court’s directive.

As a general rule, an appeal in a criminal case may be taken only from a judgment

of conviction. See Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961).

However, there are certain narrow exceptions. Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589

(Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.) (listing exceptions). The order appellant complains of

is not a judgment of conviction nor does it fall within any exception to the general rule.

See id. Moreover, this court has no jurisdiction in criminal law matters pertaining to

habeas corpus proceedings seeking relief from final felony convictions. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 § 3 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 46 2015 R.S.).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and

appellant’s failure to respond to this Court’s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED

FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. Pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 3rd day of September, 2015.