## In the Court of App eals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 24

- 000 83

- CR

_____________

____ __________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 174945 4

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Womack 

### J OSEPH 

### K

ELLY 

### D INGLER 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Joseph Kelly Di ngler att empts to appea l from a yet

- to

- be

- signed
order on his “ S pecial Appearance A nd Plea T o T he Jurisdiction Petition F or Pretri al
Writ of Habeas Corpus ” ( col lectively , the Motion ). 1 Dingler filed his notice of appeal pro se despite the fact that he has appointed

c ounsel. In his notice of appeal, Dingler states that the Moti on has “ sat idle ” in the
trial court and that he “ belie ves [the M otion] has been constructively denied by the
trial court. ”
On March 7, 2024 , we notified Dingler and his appo inted counsel of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal

. We explained tha t in criminal cases,

ou r jurisdiction is gene rally limited to appeals from conviction judgments

. See McKown
v. State , 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 ( Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1996, no p et.) (per curiam)

. We warned Dingler that unles s he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a

re sponse b y March 1 8 , 20 24 , showing gr ou nds for contin uing th e appeal, we c ould
dismiss it for w ant of jurisdiction. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3.

1 In a previous appea l arising from this sa m e 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.

— For t Worth Oct. 26 , 2023, no pet .) (mem. op., not desi g na ted 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 i d. After Dingler failed to identify any a p pealable interlocutory orde rs in response to our j urisdiction letter in that appeal , we dismissed it for want of jurisdiction

. See i d.3

Ding ler ’ s appointed counsel responded to our jurisdiction letter, noting that he
had “ no k nowledge ” of Ding ler ’ s notice of ap peal until he had received our letter and that Ding l er ’ s cas e was still pending in the trial court

. Although Dingler filed a pro se
resp on se to our juri sdiction l etter, that response does not show grounds for continuing th e appeal

. 2 Accordingly, we dismis s th is appe al f or want of jurisdi c tion.
See Te x. 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 h as no juris diction over the [S] ta t e ’ s appeal, and we affirm the judgment of that court. ” ); A utrey v. State , No. 05

- 22

- 00180

- CR, 2022 WL 1448042, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas May 9, 2022, n o pet. ) (mem . op., not designated for publication) ( “ Although appellant f iled a m oti on . . . , the trial cou r t did not sign and enter an appealable order. The refore, appellant ’ s notice of appeal does not confer jurisdiction upon this [c] ourt. ” ).

2 In his pro se response, Dingler request s additional time to fully respond to our jurisdiction letter. H owever, bec a u se Di ngler has appointed co u nsel, we do not consider that request. See Camacho v. S t ate , No. 02

- 12

- 00627

- CR, 2013 WL 362777, at * 1 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Jan. 31, 2013, no p et.) (mem. op., not desi gnated for publication) ( stating that court would not c onsid er pro se appellant ’ s r equest for extension of time to respond to jurisdiction letter when appellant had a ppointed counsel) ; see also Kenney v. State , No. 02

- 19

- 0031 3

- CR, 2 0 21 WL 832718, at *7 n.4 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Mar. 4, 2021, no pet.) (mem. o p
. , not designated for public a tion) ( “ A d efend ant has no absolute right to hybrid representation, so c ourts may ignore pro se motions filed by defendants with appointed counsel. ” )

.4 /s/ Dana Womack
Dana Womac k Justice
Do Not Publ ish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered : April 4 , 2024