Molly Boots v. State

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00315-CR

No. 02-19-00316-CR

___________________________

MOLLY BOOTS, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 1557065D, 1508523D

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Molly Boots, who has appointed counsel but filed a pro se notice of appeal, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s “Order For Competency Examination.” We informed Boots by letter that it appeared that she was not attempting to appeal from a final judgment or from an otherwise appealable order and notified her that we would dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction unless she showed grounds for continuing them. Boots has not responded.

In a criminal case, we generally have jurisdiction only when the trial court has signed a judgment of conviction. McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). “We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted to us by law.” Id. The order about which Boots complains is not a final judgment of conviction or an appealable interlocutory order. See, e.g., Morales v. State, 830 S.W.2d 139, 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Therefore, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 17, 2019