Rolando Romero v. State

Opinion

NUMBER 13-14-00561-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ROLANDO ROMERO, Appellant, v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Rolando Romero, pro se, filed a notice of appeal on September 24, 2014, from an order signed in cause number 11-CR-2892-C in the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. We dismiss the appeal.

A defendant's notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the trial court

2

enters an appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Id. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id.

Generally, a state appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). Exceptions to the general rule include: (1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.- -Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.

Our review of the documents before the Court shows that appellant is appealing an order granting a motion to dismiss signed on August 6, 2012. The motion was filed by the State and indicates that the case will be refiled. Based on the Court’s review of a companion appeal, Rolando Romero v. The State of Texas, Cause No. 13-14-00448-CR, appellant was re-indicted and convicted of possession of a controlled substance.

On September 25, 2014, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order, and requested correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed.

3

Appellant has responded that he does not speak English and his attorney has not responded to his correspondence.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 6th day of November, 2014.