NO. 07-07 -050 7-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D JAN UA RY

11, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ ROBERT JOSEPH LE JEUNE, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE CRI MI NA L DIS T RI CT COU RT OF J EF FE RS ON COU NT Y; NO . 992 69- M; H ON ORABLE JOH N STEVEN S, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Ap p e lla n t, R o b e rtJ o se p h L e Je u n e , a ct in g pr o s e, has filed w it h thi s Cou rta Petiti on f o r A c q u itta l

a n d A r r e s t o f J u d g m e nt p ertain ing to the jud gmen t ent ered against him in Cause No. 992 69-M, f iled in the Cri min al District Court in and for Je f ferson Count y , Te x as. Fi ndi ng thatw e l ack

j ur is dicti on to cons ide r thi s matter , w e di smi ss for w ant o f jur is dicti on.To the e xtent, i f any , th a t Ap p e ll ant’ s p lea din g s c oul d be re ad as i nit iat ing an 1 or ig ina l appel lat e proceed ing se eki ng extraordin ar y reli ef, Tex . R . Ap p. P . 52, w e not e tha t our mandamus and other

w ri t aut hor ity

i s l ik ew is e l imi ted. Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. § 22.221 (Verno n 20 04). 2 Th i s C o u rti s o b l i g a t e d t o d e t e r mi n e, su a sp onte , i ts jur is dicti on to ente rt ain an appeal

. State v

. R ober ts, 940 S.W .2d 655 , 657 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 6) over ruled on o ther gr ounds, St

ate v . Medr ano, 67 S.W .3d 8 92, 9 01- 03 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002) ; Ol iv o v . St ate, 918 S.W .2d 519 , 523 (T ex.Cr im.A pp. 1 996 ). T his Court’s app ellate jurisdiction is g ene rally li mite d to cas es appeal ed from tr ial court s in our di str ict. Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. §22.201 (V er non 200 4)

. J efferson Cou nty i s n ot w it hin thi s C our

t’ s d is tr ict. See i

d. at (h). 1
Al thoug h not

a parto f Appell ant’ s p eti ti on, t his C our t has dete rmi ned t hat t he judgme nt in question is the subje ct of an ap pea l pend ing before the 9 Court of Appe als th as Caus e N o. 09 -0 7- 00408- CR , s ty led Rob er t Jos eph LeJeu ne v. The State of Tex as . As of this date , an Ande rs br ief has been filed , butno j udg ment has been re ndered. Appel lan t’ s p ra y er

seeks to hav e this Cour t “rev iew the defendant’ s P eti ti on for Acq uittal and Ar re st of Judg ment and render an o pin ion of acq uittal of defendant’ s c onv icti on.” App ellantrelies upon Rule 17.1 of the T exas Rules of

Appe llate Proce dure , w hich conc er ns inst a n ce s in w hic h a c our t of appeal s i s u nabl e to tak e i mmediat e acti on, a nd Rule 17 .2, p rov iding fo r action by “ the ne a re s tc o u rt of app eals th at is able to take imm edia te act ion,” as a ba sis fo r maint aining tha t this Court ha s jurisdiction to review this matter

. Appel lan t, re ly ing upon his i ncor re ct re adi ng of Rule 19.1, post ula tes thatthe3

plen arypower of

the 9 Court of

Appe als expired 60 da y s af ter e n t ry o f

the trial court’s th judgme nt. Ap pellan t f urthe r ma intain s tha t beca use the 9 Court of Appe als did not take th act ion w it hin thatper iod of ti m e, i t w as unabl e to tak e i mmediat e acti on. Notonl y has Appel lan t fail ed to g ra sp the d is ti nct ion betw een t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment and the jud g ment of the Cou rtof Appeal s, Appel lan t has prov ide d no ex pla nati on how , g iv en th e distan ce be tw een the 9 C o u rtof Appe als in Bea um ontand the 7 Court of Appe als in th th Am arillo, this Court cou ld be con sidered “th e nea rest available court of app eals.” Beca use the 9 Cour

t of Appea ls has j ur is dicti on of thi s a ppeal , abs ent a v ali d transfer to thi s C our

t, th
w e hav e no jur is dicti on to co nsi derA ppel lan t’ s req uest , and noth ing i n the doc uments App ellanthas f iled de mo nstrat es w e oth erw ise have auth orityt o granta ny relief he see ks. See O li vo, 918 S. W .2d a t 522 -2 3.
Acc ordin g ly , w e di smi ss thi s a ppeal for w ant o f jur is dicti on.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice