James Henry Aduddle v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 7, 2004
Docket01-04-00850-CR
StatusPublished

This text of James Henry Aduddle v. State (James Henry Aduddle v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
James Henry Aduddle v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Opinion issued October 7, 2004







In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________


NOS. 01-04-00848-CR

          01-04-00849-CR

          01-04-00850-CR


JAMES HENRY ADUDDLE, Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 36,729, 36,730, and 36,731




MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant, James Henry Aduddle, filed a pro se motion in the trial court for leave to file post-conviction petitions for writ of habeas corpus in excess of the page limit in the above-referenced cause numbers. The trial court denied the motion on July 22, 2004. On July 30, 2004, appellant filed pro se notices of appeal.

               We hold that we are without jurisdiction over these appeals. Former presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, John F. Onion, Jr., sitting by assignment, stated the rule well in Ex parte Shumake, 953 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.), as follows:

Generally, we have jurisdiction in criminal cases only where there has been a judgment of conviction. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (citing Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961)). A court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by statute. See Ex parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Emerson v. Borland, 838 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ).


Id., at 844 (Onion, J.) (Retired). We know of no statute granting this Court jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a request to exceed the page limit in a writ petition.

               Therefore, we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Bland.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Workman v. State
343 S.W.2d 446 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1961)
Ex Parte Shumake
953 S.W.2d 842 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Apolinar v. State
820 S.W.2d 792 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Emerson v. Borland
838 S.W.2d 951 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
McKown v. State
915 S.W.2d 160 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
James Henry Aduddle v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-henry-aduddle-v-state-texapp-2004.