COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00336-CR

David Lee Hayman

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 30th District Court

of Wichita County (45,968-A)

December 21, 2012

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
2

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00336-CR

DAVID LEE HAYMAN APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 30TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On July 24, 2012, David Lee Hayman filed a notice of appeal2from a 

postconviction order denying his June 18, 2012 motion to the trial court wherein 

he requested records to ―assist him in preparation of a pro se brief‖ in relation to 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2Hayman titled his notice of appeal, ―Appeal and Objection to Court Order 

June 28, 2012 den[ying] Anders Brief for Appeal.‖
3

a February 29, 2008 conviction3for aggravated sexual assault. On July 25, 

2012, this court advised Hayman that it was concerned that it lacked jurisdiction 

over this appeal and invited Hayman or any party desiring to continue the appeal 

to file a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by August 6, 2012. 

To date, we have received no response showing any grounds for continuing the 

appeal.

Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by 

a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. See 

McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). 

Specifically, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a trial court’s ruling 

denying copies of documents in the record for purposes of postconviction 

litigation unless that order is in conjunction with an appeal over which we have 

jurisdiction. Self v. State, 122 S.W.3d 294, 294–95 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003, 

no pet.); Everett v. State, 91 S.W.3d 386, 386 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.).

Because this appeal is not in conjunction with an appeal over which we 

have jurisdiction, Hayman’s notice of appeal does not invoke our jurisdiction to 

decide the merits of his appeal. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Self, 122 S.W.3d at 294–95 (dismissing 

 

3

The record does not reflect that a timely postjudgment motion was filed 

that extended the appellate timetable for Hayman’s February 29, 2008 

conviction—therefore, any notice of appeal related to that conviction was due 

thirty days after the judgment was signed. See Tex. R .App. P. 26.1.
4

appeal for want of jurisdiction where trial court denied appellant’s request for free 

copy of trial court’s records to prosecute postconviction writ of habeas corpus); 

Crear v. State, No. 14–05–00222–CR, 2005 WL 914123, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 21, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction appeal of denial of pro se motion 

to obtain records and request for loan of trial records).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 21, 2012