Phillip G. Scott v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 7, 2024
• Docket: 03-24-00165-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00165-CR

Phillip G. Scott, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. CR2023-382, THE HONORABLE STEPHANIE BASCON, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Phillip G. Scott has been charged by indictment with the offense of

taking a prohibited substance into a correctional facility. See Tex. Penal Code §38.11(b).

Appellant seeks to bring an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s incompetency

Order. See Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 46B.005. Additionally, Appellant has filed a

“Supplement Appeal,” in which he seeks to also appeal the trial court’s decision to appoint him

trial counsel in a different criminal case than the one that is the subject of this appeal. The record

does not include any certification by the trial court that appellant has a right to appeal either the

incompetency order or the determination to appoint counsel in the separate criminal case. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) (requiring trial court to enter certification of defendant’s right of

appeal each time it enters judgment of guilt or other appealable order); id. R. 25.2(d) (requiring

dismissal of criminal appeal in absence of certification). Further, neither challenged action by the trial court is a “judgment or other

appealable order.” Id. R. 25.2(a)(2) (authorizing appeals in criminal cases only when trial court

enters judgment or other appealable order). Article 46B.005 incompetency Orders are

specifically not subject to interlocutory appeal pursuant to statute. See Tex. Code of Crim. Proc.

art. 46B.011. No statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal of a defendant’s request for

self-representation. See Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)

(explaining that “a defendant’s right of appeal is a statutorily created right”); cf. Blankenship

v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578, 583–84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (addressing denial of right to

self-representation in appeal from final judgment). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 7, 2024

Do Not Publish