Kavonnie Edwards v. Jeremiah McNezer

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)
• Decided: May 28, 2026
• Docket: 08-26-00187-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ———————————— No. 08-26-00187-CR ———————————— Kavonnie Edwards, Appellant v. Jeremiah McNezer, Appellee

On Appeal from the 34th District Court El Paso County, Texas Trial Court No. 20230D05266

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N

Appellant, Kavonnie Edwards, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s March 19, 2026

judgment finding the appellee, Jeremiah McNezer, guilty of criminal mischief. We dismiss the

appeal.

On August 31, 2023, a grand jury returned an indictment charging McNezer with the felony

offense of criminal mischief, alleged to have been committed against Edwards. Subsequently, on

March 19, 2026, McNezer pleaded guilty to the lesser-included class A misdemeanor offense of

criminal mischief. The complaining witness, Edwards, filed a notice of appeal on April 23, 2026, stating that she did “not agree with the decision of this case nor the restitution that was granted.”

Edwards also stated that she “would like [her] day in court” and was “requesting an appeal to

appear in court.”

“Standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air

Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex. 1993), and appellate standing is typically afforded ‘only

to parties of record,’ Gunn v. Cavanaugh, 391 S.W.2d 723, 724–25 (Tex. 1965).” State v. Naylor,

466 S.W.3d 783, 787 (Tex. 2015); see In re Marriage of Thrash, 605 S.W.3d 224, 228–29

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2020, pet. denied); Tex. Quarter Horse Ass’n v. Am. Legion Dep’t of Tex.,

496 S.W.3d 175, 181 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016, no pet.). As a result, we lack jurisdiction over, and

must dismiss, an appeal filed by an improper party. Naylor, 466 S.W.3d at 787; see Thrash, 605

S.W.3d at 228–29; Tex. Quarter Horse Ass’n, 496 S.W.3d at 182.

Here, the notice of appeal was filed by Edwards, the complaining witness in the case. A

complaining witness is not a party to a criminal proceeding; only the State and the defendant are

parties to a criminal case. See Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 56A.054 (“A victim, guardian of a

victim, or close relative of a deceased victim does not have standing to: (1) participate as a party

in a criminal proceeding; or (2) contest the disposition of any charge.”); In re State ex rel. Sistrunk,

142 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

(stating that family members of a deceased victim were not parties to a criminal proceeding and

could not challenge the disposition of the defendant’s case); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 3.02

(stating that “[a] criminal action is prosecuted in the name of the State of Texas against the

accused”); Cardenas v. State, No. 13-23-00443-CR, 2024 WL 5199222, at *10 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi Dec. 19, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that the

complaining witness was not a party to the criminal action); Davis v. State, 177 S.W.3d 355, 362

2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (en banc) (same); see generally Tex. Code

Crim. Proc. §§ 27.01–27.20 (defining the pleadings in criminal actions, which include an

indictment on the part of the State and pleadings by the defendant). Edwards, as the complaining

witness in this proceeding, lacks standing to participate as a party in the proceeding or to contest

the trial court’s judgment. See, e.g., Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 56A.054.

On May 7, 2026, we issued an order notifying Edwards that it appeared that (1) she lacked

standing to pursue an appeal of the trial court’s judgment and (2) we lacked jurisdiction over this

attempted appeal. Moreover, we ordered Edwards to file a response to our order, by May 18, 2026,

showing how she has standing to pursue this appeal and how we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

Edwards did not file a response showing that she has standing or that we have jurisdiction.

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice

May 28, 2026

Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)