Court Opinion

ID: 9896721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 15:11:15.445004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:39.318507
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                       San Antonio, Texas
                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          No. 04-23-00913-CR

                                             Tiny MACKEY,
                                                Appellant

                                                     v.

                                          The STATE of Texas,
                                                Appellee

                      From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                    Trial Court No. 2023CR6733
                           Honorable Christine Del Prado, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 8, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

           On October 12, 2023 appellant filed a notice of appeal, which does not identify any

judgment or other appealable order. The clerk’s record has also been filed in this appeal. It includes

an indictment filed August 3, 2023, a series of defense motions filed after the indictment was filed,

and a criminal docket sheet containing zero court entries. However, it contains no judgment or

order of any kind.

           As a general rule, a criminal defendant’s right of appeal is limited to an appeal from a final

judgment of conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; see also State v. Sellers, 790
                                                                                      04-23-00913-CR

S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (“A defendant’s general right to appeal under [article

44.02] and its predecessors has always been limited to appeal from a ‘final judgment,’ though the

statute does not contain this limitation on its face.”). Moreover, “[t]he courts of appeals do not

have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted

by law.” Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

       Based on the foregoing, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s counsel filed a response explaining appellant filed

the notice of appeal pro se, agreeing “there is nothing to appeal,” asking this court to “dismiss the

appeal,” and advising that he “will thoroughly advise Appellant of the right to appeal in the event

that a final judgment of conviction is entered into against her.”

       Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                  PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                -2-