In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-24-00083-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1749454

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JOSEPH KELLY DINGLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Joseph Kelly Dingler attempts to appeal from a yet-to-be-signed

order on his “Special Appearance And Plea To The Jurisdiction Petition For Pretrial 

Writ of Habeas Corpus” (collectively, the Motion).1

Dingler filed his notice of appeal pro se despite the fact that he has appointed 

counsel. In his notice of appeal, Dingler states that the Motion has “sat idle” in the 

trial court and that he “believes [the Motion] has been constructively denied by the 

trial court.”

On March 7, 2024, we notified Dingler and his appointed counsel of our 

concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We explained that in criminal cases, 

our jurisdiction is generally limited to appeals from conviction judgments. See McKown 

v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam). 

We warned Dingler that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a 

response by March 18, 2024, showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we could 

dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3. 

1

In a previous appeal arising from this same trial court cause number, Dingler 

filed a document entitled “*SPECIAL APPEARANCE*: Notice of Appeal and Brief 

on Appeal.” See Dingler v. State, No. 02-23-00233-CR, 2023 WL 7037611, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth Oct. 26, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 

We sent Dingler a jurisdiction letter in that appeal due to our concern that the trial 

court had not entered any appealable orders. See id. After Dingler failed to identify 

any appealable interlocutory orders in response to our jurisdiction letter in that appeal, 

we dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. See id. 
3

Dingler’s appointed counsel responded to our jurisdiction letter, noting that he 

had “no knowledge” of Dingler’s notice of appeal until he had received our letter and 

that Dingler’s case was still pending in the trial court. Although Dingler filed a pro se 

response to our jurisdiction letter, that response does not show grounds for 

continuing the appeal.

2 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); State v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2012) (“We conclude that, because there is no written order from which to 

appeal, the court of appeals correctly held that it has no jurisdiction over the [S]tate’s 

appeal, and we affirm the judgment of that court.”); Autrey v. State, No. 05-22-00180-

CR, 2022 WL 1448042, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 9, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (“Although appellant filed a motion . . . , the trial court did 

not sign and enter an appealable order. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal does 

not confer jurisdiction upon this [c]ourt.”).

2

In his pro se response, Dingler requests additional time to fully respond to our 

jurisdiction letter. However, because Dingler has appointed counsel, we do not 

consider that request. See Camacho v. State, No. 02-12-00627-CR, 2013 WL 362777, at 

*1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 31, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (stating that court would not consider pro se appellant’s request for

extension of time to respond to jurisdiction letter when appellant had appointed 

counsel); see also Kenney v. State, No. 02-19-00313-CR, 2021 WL 832718, at *7 n.4 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth Mar. 4, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) 

(“A defendant has no absolute right to hybrid representation, so courts may ignore 

pro se motions filed by defendants with appointed counsel.”).
4

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: April 4, 2024