Jorge Arellano v. State

Opinion

NUMBER 13-18-00672-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

JORGE ARELLANO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellant Jorge Arellano, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from trial

cause number 06-CR-770-E in the 357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. In

his notice of appeal, appellant did not identify a specific judgment or order subject to

appeal, but instead contended that the judge of the trial court was “indifferent” to his request for DNA testing under Article 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01–.05 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). On

December 11, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that there

was not a final, appealable judgment in this case and requested correction of this defect

if it could be done. The Clerk notified appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the

defect was not cured. Appellant has not corrected the defect.

In Texas, appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they are specifically

authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011);

see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).

Generally, a state 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, 343

S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961); Ex parte Ragston, 402 S.W.3d 472, 477 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013), aff'd sub nom. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2014); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996,

no pet.). The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in

a criminal appeal absent express statutory authority. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792,

794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 907 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

2000, no pet.). Exceptions to the general rule 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; see also Bridle, 16 S.W.3d at 908 n.1.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal and the

2 matters before the Court, is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this

Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters here. Because there is no appealable order, we

DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions, if any, are likewise

DISMISSED.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice

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

Delivered and filed the 24th day of January, 2019.