Nathaniel Jones, III v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 14, 2011
• Docket: 14-10-00554-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed in Part and Affirmed in Part and Memorandum Opinion filed July 14, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-10-00554-CV

Nathaniel Jones, III, Appellant

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On Appeal from the 133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-12124

MEMORANDUM  OPINION

Appellant attempts to appeal orders issued by the 133rd District Court in cause numbers 2010-12124, 2010-12966, 2010-14175, 2010-14176, and 2010-14736.  Because the only appealable order in this court’s record is from cause number 2010-12124, we dismiss appellant’s attempted appeals of the remaining cause numbers and affirm his appeal in cause number 2010-12124.

Appellant filed a motion to expunge the records of his convictions in five cause numbers.  The trial court denied appellant’s motion in cause number 2010-12124 because the statute of limitations had not run.  With regard to the remaining four cause numbers, the trial court deferred a ruling on appellant’s motion until after his trial.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal listing all five cause numbers, but the record in this court only contains an order denying expunction in cause number 2010-12124. 

In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in abating his four motions for expunction.  The trial court’s decision to abate the motions is interlocutory.  Our record contains no final order ruling on appellant’s motions for expunction.  Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments.  Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).  Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute.  Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001).  Because we do not have jurisdiction over the trial court’s interlocutory order abating the four motions for expunction, we dismiss appellant’s appeal of cause numbers 2010-12966, 2010-14175, 2010-14176, and 2010-14736. 

After receiving appellee’s brief, appellant filed a motion to abate the appeal to permit him to file notices of appeal from the four abatement orders.  Because those orders are interlocutory, appellant’s motion is denied.  When the orders become final appellant may file timely notices of appeal at that time.

Appellant failed to raise any issue complaining of the trial court’s order denying expunction in cause number 2010-12124.  An appellant must attack all independent bases or grounds that support the trial court’s judgment.  See Britton v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676, 681 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).  If an independent ground fully supports the judgment, but the appellant assigns no error to that independent ground, we may affirm the judgment on that basis.  Id.  Because appellant failed to complain about the only order he appealed, we affirm the trial court’s order denying expunction.

Appellant’s attempted appeal of cause numbers 2010-12966, 2010-14175, 2010-14176, and 2010-14736 is dismissed.  The trial court’s judgment in cause number 2010-12124 is affirmed.

                                                                                    PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Boyce.