Samuel Heath Cochran v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 24, 2004
• Docket: 06-04-00006-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-04-00006-CR

SAMUEL HEATH COCHRAN, Appellant

 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

                                              

On Appeal from the 4th Judicial District Court

Rusk County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR01-128

---

                                                 

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Samuel Heath Cochran has appealed from an order of the Fourth Judicial District Court denying his motion for return of property. The property he seeks to recover consists of polaroid pictures of brickwork and construction introduced as evidence in his criminal trial for attempted manufacture of a controlled substance. Cochran was convicted December 6, 2001, over two years ago.

            This Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals brought from judgments of conviction and from other orders as allowed by law. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). As a general rule, an appellate court may consider appeals by criminal defendants only after conviction. See Ex parte Shumake, 953 S.W.2d 842, 844 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.). Intermediate appellate courts have no jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders absent express authority. See Ex parte Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).

            This appeal does not fall within one of the exceptions to the rule. We conclude this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

            We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice

Date Submitted:          February 23, 2004

Date Decided:             February 24, 2004

Do Not Publish

of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a child . . . .

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(c)(1) (Vernon 2003).

In this case, the jury acquitted Rex of two of the alleged sexual acts, and found him guilty of touching T.R.'s genitals. The evidence is not particularly strong, but there is evidence that it occurred, and that when T.R. pulled away, Rex pursued to continue fondling him, and there is evidence that might indicate an emission of semen by Rex.

There is also evidence that, if believed by the jury, could have easily supported a different result. We are not, however, permitted to second-guess a jury's determination that evidence is sufficient when the credibility of the witness is at bar, as in this instance. We find the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the verdict.

We affirm the judgment.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: November 4, 2008

Date Decided: November 5, 2008