Opinion issued October 18 , 201 6

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 6 - 00 4 1 6 - C R

——————————— JOHNNY LEE CHILDRESS , JR. , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 26 8th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15 - DCR - 070013A MEMORANDUM OPINION A ppellant, Johnny Lee Childress, Jr. , pleaded guilty to the second

- degree felony offense of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit a theft under the original trial court cause number 15

- DCR

- 070013 , with the agreed punishment2

recommendation that he receive twelve years’ confinement
. 1 On A pril 25 , 201 6 , the trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at twelve years’ confinement under trial court cause number 15

- DCR

- 070013 , under the terms of h is plea bargain with the State. This sentence is within the applicable range. 2 The trial court certified that this is a plea

- bargain case , that appellant has no right of appeal , and that he waived his right of appeal . A ppellant did not appeal from this judgment. Instead, appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal from the related trial court cause number 15

- DCR

- 070013A, under which th ere is no judgment of conviction
. The trial court appointed Michael C. Diaz as appellate counsel for appellant under both trial court cause numbers 15

- DCR

- 070013 and 15

- DCR

070013A . Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw with an amended Anders br ief under 15

- DCR

- 070013A stating that the record presents no non

frivolous issues or reversible error and that, therefore, this appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Appellant has filed n o substantive pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief
. 3 We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 30.02 (a)(1), ( c ) (2) (West Supp. 201 6 ).
2 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 12. 3 3 (a) (West Supp. 201 6 ).
3 On September 27, 2016, this Court denied appellant’s pro se letter

- motion to dismiss this appeal without prejudice to refiling by appellant’s counsel because it3

There is no constitutional right to appellate review of criminal convictions. See Phynes v. State , 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). The right to appeal in criminal cases is conferred by the legislature, and a party may appeal only from judgments of conviction or orders authorized as appealable. See T EX . C RIM . P ROC . C ODE A NN . art. 44.02 (West Supp. 2016); T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2 (a) (2 ); see also Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Here , the clerk’s record for the underlying trial court cause number 15

- DCR

070013A, filed in this Court on June 6, 2016, reflects that the State had re

- indicted appellant on December 21, 2015, f or the same second

- degree felony offense of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit a theft as under the original trial court cause number 1 5

- DCR

- 070013. The only apparent difference between appellant’s original and subsequent i ndictment s w as that the State added two enhancement paragraphs under trial court cause number 15

- DCR

- 070013A . Then , on April 25, 2016, the trial court signed an order grant ing the State’s motion to dismiss the indictment in trial court cause number 15

- DCR

- 070013A bec ause appellant “was convicted in another case , ” which lists the original trial court cause number 15

- DCR

- 070013. 4 Because there is no judgment of conviction or
did not comply with Rule 42.2. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.2(a). To date , appellant’s counsel has not filed a compliant motion to dismiss with this Court.
4 Although the State’s motion to dismiss under 15

- DCR

- 070013A lists the other trial court cause number as “13 DCR 070013,” this appears to be a typographical4

appealable order in 15

- DCR

- 070013A , the only trial court cause number on this appeal, 5 we lack jurisdiction over this appeal
. See State v. Sanavongxay , 407 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (court of appeals lacks jurisdiction absent written, appealable order); see also Petty v. State , 800 S.W.2d 582, 583 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 1990, no wri t) (defe ndant could not appeal trial court dismissal of indictment

— defendant not aggrieved by order). Conclusion Accordingly, we dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f). We dismiss a ll pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Huddle
. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2 (b).

error because the clerk’s record for the original trial court cause number 15

- DCR

070013 was filed in this Court on June 6, 2016, with the judgment signed on April 25, 2016.
5 Moreover, even if appellant had timely appealed from the original trial court cause number 15

- DCR

- 070013, that appeal would have to be dismissed because the trial court’s certification , included in the clerk’s record, states that the original case was a pl ea - bargained case and that appellant has no right of appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The clerk’s record for 15

- DCR

- 070013 supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).