## NO. 12

- 22

- 00179

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

JACKIE DEWAYNE ANDR E WS , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Jackie Dewayne And rew s , acting pro se, filed a notice o f appeal from the denial of a motion t o appoint counsel and a motion for disclosure of “ tangible things ” under the Michael Morton Act. 1 On June 29, 2022 , this Court notified Appell ant that the noti ce of appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, namely, the order being appealed is n ot an appealable order

. We further notified Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before July 29 to show the jurisdic tion of the Court. Appellant filed an amended notice o f appeal that re iterates his intent to appeal from the denial of his two motions

. In criminal cases, an appellate court has jurisdiction only from a final judgment of conviction , an appealable order, or where expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694, 696

– 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standard for determining jurisdiction is not

w hether appeal is precluded by law but whether appeal is authorized by law); see als o Yo ung v. State , No. 12

- 06

- 00189

- CR, 2006 WL 1699585, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Tyler June 21, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op. not designation for publicat ion) ; McI n tosh v. State , 110 S.W.3d 51, 52 (T ex. App.

– Waco 2002, no pet.) ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)

. A motion to compel discovery under the

1 In 2000, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life i n prison. Th is Court affirmed his conviction. S ee Andrews v. State , 78 S.W .3d 13 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2002, pet. dism ’ d ).2 Michael Morton Act is not an appealable order. 2 See Padilla v. State , No . 03

- 18

- 00065

- CR, 2018 WL 3118542, at *2 (Tex . App.

— Austin June 26, 2 018, no pet.) (mem . op., not designated for publi cation) ; see also Bibbs v. State , No. 02

- 18

- 00391

- CR, 2018 WL 5832161, at * 1 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Nov. 8, 2 018, no pet. ) (mem. op. , not designated for publication)

. Nor is the denial o f a motion to appoint counsel appea lable. See Campbell v. State , No. 01

- 18

- 00087

- CR, 2018 WL 2305526, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] May 22 , 201 8, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per curiam) (dism issing, for want of jurisdictio n, appeal from denial of request for appointed counsel to represent appellant in seeking post

conviction DNA testing because appeal was not from f inal order denying motion for DNA testing); see also Martin v. State , No. 02

- 18

- 0 0119

- CR, 2018 WL 2248497, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 17, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing, for
want of ju risdiction, appeal from denial of motion for appointed counsel; trial cour t's order denied request for co uns el and not request for DNA testing, nor was there a motion for DNA testing in record). Because there is no appealable order over which this C ourt has jurisdiction , we dismiss Ap pellant ’ s appeal for want of jurisdiction

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(f)

. Opinion delivered August 10, 2022. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

2 Additionally , the Act only appli es to offenses committed on or after January 1, 2014; thus, i t is inapplicable to this case. See Padi lla v. State , No. 03

- 18

- 00065

- CR, 2018 WL 3118542, at *2 (Tex . App.

— Austin June 26, 2 018, no pet. ) (mem. op., not designated for publi cation) ; see also Act of May 14, 2013, 83d Le g., R.S., ch. 49, § 3, 2013 Tex. Gen. Laws 106, 108

.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF A PPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 10, 2022

NO. 12-22-00179- CR

JACKIE DEWAYNE ANDREWS , Appe llant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-81320-99) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the sam e being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREE D by this Court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction ; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.