NO. 12-20-00002-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TIMOTHY DEWAYNE PULLINS, JR., 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Timothy Dewayne Pullins, Jr., acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal in trial court cause 

number 007-0509-13, in which he was convicted of aggravated robbery, a felony. Sentence was 

imposed on October 17, 2013. Appellant appealed and this Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction 

on May 6, 2015. See Pullins v. State, No. 12-13-00330-CR, 2015 WL 2124897 (Tex. App.—

Tyler May 6, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Appellant filed a new 

notice of appeal on January 6, 2020. In the notice of appeal, Appellant mentions new evidence, 

claims Section 29.03 of the penal code (aggravated robbery) is unconstitutional, and contends he 

“made an involuntary and unlawful plea bargain to said offense.” His docketing statement reflects 

an intent to appeal from his 2013 conviction.

Accordingly, on January 6, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the information 

received in this appeal does not show the jurisdiction of this Court. Specifically, there is no final 

judgment or appealable order contained therein. The notice further informed Appellant that the 

appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before February 5 to show 

this Court’s jurisdiction. This deadline expired without an amended notice of appeal or other 

response from Appellant.

In criminal cases, an appellate court has jurisdiction only from a final judgment of 

conviction or where expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. 
2

Crim. App. 2008) (standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether appeal is precluded by law 

but whether appeal is authorized by law); see also Young 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 

publication); McIntosh v. State, 110 S.W.3d 51, 52 (Tex. App.–Waco 2002, no pet.). To the extent 

Appellant attempts to appeal from his conviction, we again note that Appellant previously 

appealed his conviction and this Court affirmed his conviction. Pullins, 2015 WL 2124897. Our 

mandate issued on December 11, 2015 and Appellant’s conviction is final. He is not entitled to a 

second appeal of that same conviction. See Huffman v. State, No. 12-19-00406-CR, 2020 WL 

219232, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 15, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication); see also Confer v. State, No. 03-19-00043-CR, 2019 WL 908289, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Austin Feb. 22, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Only the Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals possesses jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings. See Ater 

v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). And the record does 

not indicate the existence of a new final judgment or other appealable order over which this Court 

could exercise jurisdiction.

Accordingly, for these reasons, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). 

Opinion delivered February 12, 2020.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 12, 2020

NO. 12-20-00002-CR

TIMOTHY DEWAYNE PULLINS, JR.,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0509-13)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the 

appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED 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.