William Harris v. State

Opinion

Opinion issued March 14, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

immediately appealable order”). We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory

orders unless jurisdiction has been expressly granted by statute. Apolinar v. State,

820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d

694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“The standard for determining jurisdiction is

not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by

law.”). There is no statutory authorization to appeal the denial of a motion to appoint

habeas corpus counsel.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss.

Do not publish.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

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-18-00960-CR ——————————— WILLIAM HARRIS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 876384 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal of the denial of a motion for the appointment of habeas corpus counsel. A ruling denying a motion to appoint counsel is an interlocutory order. See, e.g., Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (“an order denying appointed counsel under Article 64.01(c) is not an