COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

RI CARDO HECTOR DOMI NGUEZ , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
. § § § § § § No. 08-10-00352- CR

Appea l from 205th District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC # 74534)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Ricardo Hec tor Domingue z attempts to a ppeal f rom an orde r deny

ing his amende d motion for ne w trial. We dismiss t he appe al for w ant of jurisdiction. I n 1995, Appellant was convicted on his g uilty plea of unlawful possession of betwee n four
ounces and five pounds of marijuana , a third-deg ree felony
. I n 2009, he filed in the district court a pro se application for a writ of habea s corpus pursuant to Articl e 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e. Among other things, he contende d that the act u al we ight of the marijuana , without its wra

pper, was less than four ounces; thus, he was g uilty only of a misdemeanor rathe r than
a felony
. I n connec tion with his habea s application, Ap p el lant filed a motion for new trial and amende d motion for new trial in the district court. The district court denied the amende d motion on November

23, 2010, and Appe llant f iled a notice of appea l f

rom that order on Dec ember 1, 2010. On Dec ember 15, 2010, the Court of Criminal Appea ls dis missed the habea s application without written orde r. By letter dated J anuar

y 5, 2011, the cler

k of this Court advised Appellant t h at an order deny ing a motion for new t ri al i s n o t an appea lable order
. The letter stated that unless Appellantcould show g rounds for co n t i n u i n g the appea l within ten day s, the appea l would be dismiss ed

without further notice. Appellant subm itted a t i m el y response , stating that his habea s application raised a meritorious jurisdictional issue, which may be raised at any time. This does not demonstrate that we ha

ve jurisdiction over the appea l. As a gene ral rule, we only have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a crimina l d ef en d an t from a final judgme nt of conviction. See Ex parte Culver , 932 S.W .2d 207, 210 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1996, pet. ref

’d). The denial of a motion for new trial is not an independe ntly appea lable order
. See Blue v. State , Nos. 10-08-00316- CR & 1 0

- 0 8

- 0 0 3 2 5
- CR , 2 0 0 8 WL 4427239, at *1 (Tex.App.--Waco Oct. 1, 2008, no pet.)(not desig nated for publication); Grave s v. State , No. 14-05-00034- CR, 2005 WL 309977, at *1 (Tex.App.--Houston [14t h Dist.] Fe b
. 1 0 , 2005, no pet.)(not desig nated for publica ti o n ) ; J e n k in s v . State , No. 12-01-00331- CR, 2001 WL 1622260, at *1 (Tex.App.--Ty ler Dec
. 19, 2001, no pet.)(not de signa ted for publication). M o re o v er , Article 11.07 sets forth the exclusive method for challeng ing a final felony
co nviction. See T E X .C O D E C R I M .P R O C .AN N . art. 11.07, § 5 (West Supp. 2010). “Ar ticle 1 1
. 0 7 contains no role for the courts of appea ls; the only courts ref err ed to are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appea ls.” In re McAfe e , 53 S.W .3 d 715, 718 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig . proce eding ). The a ppeal is dismissed for lac k of jurisdiction.
Fe bruar y 28, 2011 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ
. (Do Not Publish)