t5*(S ORIGINAL SEP 23 2015
NUMBER PD-.0852-15 AbelAGOSta.CtBr TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN
SAMSON LOYNAGHAN, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On appeal from the 2nd Court of Appeals
Fort Worth, Texas FILED IN COA# 02-15-00135-CR COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS SEP 23 2Gi5
Abel Acosta, Clerk
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Authorities 1
Statement of the Case 1
Procedural History 1
Statement Regarding Oral Argument 1
Grounds for Review 2
(Do Constitutional rights invoke jurisdiction in Texas Appellate
Courts?)
Argument 2,3
Prayer for Relief ff
IDENTITY OF PARTIES
213th District Court, Judge Louis Sturns
Appellant Pro 5e, Samson M. Loynachan
*No counsel has litigated this issue on either side INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Texas Constitution, Article I § 12 2
Texas Constitution, Article I § 13 3
Texas Constitution, Article I § 19 3
Texas Constitution, Article V § 6 2, 3
U.S. Constitution, Amendment V 3
U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant uas convicted of felonymurder, which was affirmed
on appeal. Appellant, seeking collateral review, requested
access to the Appellate Record from the Trial Court. The Trial
Court denied Appellant's motions. Appellant filed a notice of
appeal with the 2nd Court of Appeals. That court dismissed for
want of jurisdiction stating that the district court's orders were
not appealable.
The Appellant now seeks review in this Court'on the question
of j urisdiction.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
(1) Motion for transfer of Appellate Record filed in the District
Court: 27 October 2014
(2) Addendum to above motion filed: 19 November 2014
(3) Second addendum to above.motion filed 11 December 2014
(4) Trial court denies all motions: 15 December 2014
(5) Notice of denial given to appellant:. 23 March 2015
(6) Notice of appeal filed in 2nd COA: 4 May 2015
(7) Question of jurisdiction raised by.COA: 5 May 2015
(B) Appellant files response to question of jurisdiction: 14 May 2 015
(9) Court of appeals dismisses for want of jurisdiction: 25 Dune 2015
NO ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
The 2nd Court of Appeals, citing various case law and pre
sumably referncing TRAP 25.2(a)(2), ruled that the trial court's
denial of access to the appellate record was not an appeall able
order, and they therefore lacked jurisdiction.
(1) If a trial courts order denies a person of his state
and/or federal constitutional rights^ do those consti
tutional provisions fail to invoke jurisdiction in Texas
Appellate Courts?
ARGUMENT
Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution states: [The] Court
of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction co-extensive with
the limits of their respective districts, which shall extend to
all cases of which the District Courts or County Courts have orig
inal or appellate jurisdiction, under such, restrictions and regr-
ulations as may be pre scribed, by 1aw ....[] Said courts shall
have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be
prescribed by law..
Appellant asserts that: The Texas and U.S. Constitution pro
vide other jurisdiction as prescribed by law, under Article V,
§ 6.
In his (Grounds for Continuing Appeal) response to the 2nd
court of appeals, appellant illustrated to that court that:
• The denial of the records by the District Court denied
him of his state created right to file a complete writ of habeas
corpus under Tex. Const. Art. I, § 12.
(2) • Preventing appellant from submitting a complete writ of
habeas corpus subsequently denies him the right to be heard by the
Court of Criminal Appeals, which violates his rights of Due Process
and Due Course of Law (Access to Courts) under U.S. Const. Amends
V and XIV and Tex. Const. Art. I § 19, respectively.
• There are myriad rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court (that
appellant provided to the court of appeals) holding that, denying
an indigent applicant access toor a copy of the records denies
his Constitutional, right to Equal Protection under U.S. ;i Amend XIV.
Addi tionally,... the se (common-law) rulings afford the appellant an
avenue of protection under Texas' Constitution, Art. I § 13.
While the appellant concedes that his response to the 2nd
Court of Appeals was not a model of clarity, as a laymen, he did
invoke all of these constitutional rights and cite them as grounds
for appeal.
The court of appeals uas mistaken in it's belief that appellant
was simply furthering an argument of the.appeal itself. These i
arguments may in fact be wholly relevant to the merits of the
appeal, but, if state and federal constitutional law invoke appell
ate jurisdiction in Texas in accordance with Art. V § 6, then the
court of appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for want of juris
diction, as appellant brought these matters to the attention of
that court.
State and federal constitutional rights have little value to
the people if the courts do not have jurisdiction to provide a
remedy under those same provisions.
(3) PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, premises considered, appellant prays that this c:
court over-rule the lower court's dismissal for want of juris
diction and, finding that Texas' and U.S. Constitutions convey
jurisdiction in Texas Courts, order the lower court to hear the
appeal on it's merits.
Very Respectfully submitted,
^J^Zzs SAMSON LOYNA PRO SE 12071 EM 3522 ABILENE, TX 79601
(4) COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00135-CR
SAMSON M. LOYNACHAN APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1233936R
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Appellant Samson Loynachan was convicted of murder and received a life
sentence in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Loynachan v. State, No. 13-12-00461-CR, 2013 WL 6730137 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi Dec. 19, 2013, pet. refd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Thereafter, on April 9, 2015, Appellant filed a notice of appeal
1SeeTex. R. App. P. 47.4. seeking a restricted appeal from the trial court's December 15, 2014
postconviction order denying his October 27, 2014 "Motion for Temporary
Transfer of Appellate Record"; his November 19, 2014 "Addendum to: Motion for
Temporary Transfer of Appellate Record"; and his December 11, 2014 "2nd
Addendum to: Motion for Temporary Transfer of Appellate Record." See Tex. R.
App. 30. Appellant needed the appellate record to prepare his postconviction
application for writ of habeas corpus. On May 5, 2015, this court advised
Appellant that it was concerned that it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court
had not entered an appealable order and invited Appellant to file a response
showing grounds for continuing the appeal by May 15, 2015. Appellant timely
responded on May 14, 2015, but his response does not address this court's
jurisdiction to hear his appeal but addresses, instead, the merits of the trial
court's December 15, 2014 order.2
Generally, an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
t5*(S ORIGINAL SEP 23 2015
NUMBER PD-.0852-15 AbelAGOSta.CtBr TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN
SAMSON LOYNAGHAN, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On appeal from the 2nd Court of Appeals
Fort Worth, Texas FILED IN COA# 02-15-00135-CR COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS SEP 23 2Gi5
Abel Acosta, Clerk
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Authorities 1
Statement of the Case 1
Procedural History 1
Statement Regarding Oral Argument 1
Grounds for Review 2
(Do Constitutional rights invoke jurisdiction in Texas Appellate
Courts?)
Argument 2,3
Prayer for Relief ff
IDENTITY OF PARTIES
213th District Court, Judge Louis Sturns
Appellant Pro 5e, Samson M. Loynachan
*No counsel has litigated this issue on either side INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Texas Constitution, Article I § 12 2
Texas Constitution, Article I § 13 3
Texas Constitution, Article I § 19 3
Texas Constitution, Article V § 6 2, 3
U.S. Constitution, Amendment V 3
U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant uas convicted of felonymurder, which was affirmed
on appeal. Appellant, seeking collateral review, requested
access to the Appellate Record from the Trial Court. The Trial
Court denied Appellant's motions. Appellant filed a notice of
appeal with the 2nd Court of Appeals. That court dismissed for
want of jurisdiction stating that the district court's orders were
not appealable.
The Appellant now seeks review in this Court'on the question
of j urisdiction.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
(1) Motion for transfer of Appellate Record filed in the District
Court: 27 October 2014
(2) Addendum to above motion filed: 19 November 2014
(3) Second addendum to above.motion filed 11 December 2014
(4) Trial court denies all motions: 15 December 2014
(5) Notice of denial given to appellant:. 23 March 2015
(6) Notice of appeal filed in 2nd COA: 4 May 2015
(7) Question of jurisdiction raised by.COA: 5 May 2015
(B) Appellant files response to question of jurisdiction: 14 May 2 015
(9) Court of appeals dismisses for want of jurisdiction: 25 Dune 2015
NO ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
The 2nd Court of Appeals, citing various case law and pre
sumably referncing TRAP 25.2(a)(2), ruled that the trial court's
denial of access to the appellate record was not an appeall able
order, and they therefore lacked jurisdiction.
(1) If a trial courts order denies a person of his state
and/or federal constitutional rights^ do those consti
tutional provisions fail to invoke jurisdiction in Texas
Appellate Courts?
ARGUMENT
Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution states: [The] Court
of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction co-extensive with
the limits of their respective districts, which shall extend to
all cases of which the District Courts or County Courts have orig
inal or appellate jurisdiction, under such, restrictions and regr-
ulations as may be pre scribed, by 1aw ....[] Said courts shall
have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be
prescribed by law..
Appellant asserts that: The Texas and U.S. Constitution pro
vide other jurisdiction as prescribed by law, under Article V,
§ 6.
In his (Grounds for Continuing Appeal) response to the 2nd
court of appeals, appellant illustrated to that court that:
• The denial of the records by the District Court denied
him of his state created right to file a complete writ of habeas
corpus under Tex. Const. Art. I, § 12.
(2) • Preventing appellant from submitting a complete writ of
habeas corpus subsequently denies him the right to be heard by the
Court of Criminal Appeals, which violates his rights of Due Process
and Due Course of Law (Access to Courts) under U.S. Const. Amends
V and XIV and Tex. Const. Art. I § 19, respectively.
• There are myriad rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court (that
appellant provided to the court of appeals) holding that, denying
an indigent applicant access toor a copy of the records denies
his Constitutional, right to Equal Protection under U.S. ;i Amend XIV.
Addi tionally,... the se (common-law) rulings afford the appellant an
avenue of protection under Texas' Constitution, Art. I § 13.
While the appellant concedes that his response to the 2nd
Court of Appeals was not a model of clarity, as a laymen, he did
invoke all of these constitutional rights and cite them as grounds
for appeal.
The court of appeals uas mistaken in it's belief that appellant
was simply furthering an argument of the.appeal itself. These i
arguments may in fact be wholly relevant to the merits of the
appeal, but, if state and federal constitutional law invoke appell
ate jurisdiction in Texas in accordance with Art. V § 6, then the
court of appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for want of juris
diction, as appellant brought these matters to the attention of
that court.
State and federal constitutional rights have little value to
the people if the courts do not have jurisdiction to provide a
remedy under those same provisions.
(3) PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, premises considered, appellant prays that this c:
court over-rule the lower court's dismissal for want of juris
diction and, finding that Texas' and U.S. Constitutions convey
jurisdiction in Texas Courts, order the lower court to hear the
appeal on it's merits.
Very Respectfully submitted,
^J^Zzs SAMSON LOYNA PRO SE 12071 EM 3522 ABILENE, TX 79601
(4) COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00135-CR
SAMSON M. LOYNACHAN APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1233936R
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Appellant Samson Loynachan was convicted of murder and received a life
sentence in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Loynachan v. State, No. 13-12-00461-CR, 2013 WL 6730137 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi Dec. 19, 2013, pet. refd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Thereafter, on April 9, 2015, Appellant filed a notice of appeal
1SeeTex. R. App. P. 47.4. seeking a restricted appeal from the trial court's December 15, 2014
postconviction order denying his October 27, 2014 "Motion for Temporary
Transfer of Appellate Record"; his November 19, 2014 "Addendum to: Motion for
Temporary Transfer of Appellate Record"; and his December 11, 2014 "2nd
Addendum to: Motion for Temporary Transfer of Appellate Record." See Tex. R.
App. 30. Appellant needed the appellate record to prepare his postconviction
application for writ of habeas corpus. On May 5, 2015, this court advised
Appellant that it was concerned that it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court
had not entered an appealable order and invited Appellant to file a response
showing grounds for continuing the appeal by May 15, 2015. Appellant timely
responded on May 14, 2015, but his response does not address this court's
jurisdiction to hear his appeal but addresses, instead, the merits of the trial
court's December 15, 2014 order.2
Generally, an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a
criminal defendant only after a final judgment of conviction. See McKown v.
State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet). An appellate
court lacks jurisdiction to review a trial court's ruling denying a party copies of
documents in the record unless that order is in conjunction with an appeal over
2Appellant also objected to this court's treating his appeal as a criminal rather than as a civil proceeding. To be eligible for the extended deadlines of a restricted appeal under rule 30, Appellant must have his proceeding classified as a civil case. See Tex. R. App. P. 30 ("Restricted Appeal to Court of Appeals in Civil Cases"). For reasons explained in our opinion, we lack jurisdiction regardless of the application of rule 30. which it has jurisdiction. See Self v. State, 122 S.W.3d 294, 294-95 (Tex.
App.—Eastland 2003, no pet.); Everett v. State, 91 S.W.3d 386, 386 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2002, no pet.). Another court observed:
[We have] jurisdiction over criminal appeals only when expressly granted by law. No statute vests this court with jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a request for a free copy of the trial record when such a request is not presented in conjunction with a timely[-]filed direct appeal. Furthermore, an intermediate court of appeals has no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases.
Williamson v. State, Nos. 10-12-00146-CR, 10-12-00147-CR, 10-12-00148-CR,
10-12-00149-CR, 2012 WL 2353684, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco June 13, 2012, no
pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citations omitted). Because
Appellant's appeal is not in conjunction with an appeal over which we have
jurisdiction, his notice of appeal does not invoke our jurisdiction to decide the
merits of the trial court's order. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether
the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law."). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
43.2(f).3
3See Ex parte Brown, Nos. 02-12-00515-CR, 02-12-00516-CR, 02-12- 00517-CR, 02-12-00518-CR, 2012 WL 6632770, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction an appeal from postconviction writ of habeas corpus in which appellant sought a copy of the trial court records without cost); Hayman v. State, No. 02-12-00336-CR, 2012 WL 6632761, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction a 2012 postconviction order denying appellant's motion requesting PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: June 25, 2015
records to assist appellant prepare pro se brief in conjunction with his 2008 conviction); Crear v. State, No. 14-05-00222-CR, 2005 WL 914123, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist] Apr. 21, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction appeal of denial of pro se motion to obtain records and request for loan of trial records); Self, 122 S.W.3d at 294- 95 (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction where trial court denied appellant's request for free copy of trial court's records to prosecute postconviction writ of habeas corpus).