Rainer, Ronald Dale v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 8, 2004
• Docket: 14-04-00535-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 8, 2004

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 8, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00535-CR

RONALD DALE RAINER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10,436

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of burglary, and on November 15, 1976, he was sentenced to probation for five years.  On February 2, 1979, the trial court signed an order revoking appellant=s probation and sentencing him to confinement for two years in the Texas Department of Corrections.  According to information provided by the Fort Bend County District Clerk=s office, on January 14, 2004, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed appellant=s application for writ of habeas corpus without a written order.  On May 4, 2004, appellant filed a motion to obtain copies of all documents, evidence and transcripts relating to his criminal conviction in cause number 10,436 for use in preparation of a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus.  On May 12, 2004, the trial court signed an order denying appellant=s motion.  On May 25, 2004, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court=s order.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 44.02 and the Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (Vernon 1979);  see also Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589-90 (Tex. App.CDallas 1998, no pet.) (identifying the types of interlocutory orders that are appealable).  AThe courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.@ Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Wolfe v. State, 120 S.W.3d 368, 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding there is no right to appeal post-conviction motion absent specific legislative authority).  No statute or rule vests this court with jurisdiction over his post-conviction motion.  Moreover, we have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in  felony cases.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, ' 3 (Vernon Supp.2004).  Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed July 8, 2004.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Guzman.

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