Jorge Cordero-Varela v. State
This text of Jorge Cordero-Varela v. State (Jorge Cordero-Varela v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOS. 12-15-00213-CR 12-15-00214-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
JORGE CORDERO-VARELA, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Appellant, Jorge Cordero-Varela, attempts to appeal from an order “dismissing” his motion for discovery. 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. See Demar v. State, No. 14-08-00982-CR, 2008 WL 4809479, at *1 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 6, 2008, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (listing exceptions). The order Appellant complains of is not a judgment of conviction nor does it fall within any exception to the general rule. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over the appeals. On September 2, 2015, we sent Appellant a letter informing him that the order being appealed is not an appealable order. We further notified Appellant that the appeals would be dismissed unless, on or before October 2, 2015, the information in the appeals was amended to show the jurisdiction of this court. In response, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal stating that he seeks to appeal “the trial court’s judgment of said conviction.” However, Appellant did not provide further information about the judgment of conviction. And we cannot conclude from the information provided in these appeals that a final judgment of conviction has recently been rendered against Appellant. Because Appellant has not shown the jurisdiction of this court, the appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Opinion delivered September 30, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
2 COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER 30, 2015
NO. 12-15-00213-CR
JORGE CORDERO-VARELA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0766-12)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J. COURT OF APPEALS
NO. 12-15-00214-CR
JORGE CORDERO-VARELA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0767-12)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jorge Cordero-Varela v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jorge-cordero-varela-v-state-texcrimapp-2015.