Court Opinion

ID: 9892232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-21 09:12:37.336462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:08.619555
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00248-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                       TYLER, TEXAS

EX PARTE:                                        §      APPEAL FROM THE 217TH

WILLIAM WALKER,                                  §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
APPELLANT
                                                 §      ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM

       William Walker, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal regarding his application for writ
of habeas corpus seeking a bond reduction. The application was filed on January 31, 2023, and
the trial court signed a writ ordering that the Sheriff of Angelina County, Texas produce
Appellant for a hearing on March 6, 2023. The Angelina County online records reflect that a
hearing occurred on March 6, but there is no indication that the trial court signed a written order
on the habeas application. Furthermore, the Angelina County District Clerk’s Office informed
the Clerk of this Court that the trial court has not signed a written order on Appellant’s habeas
application. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on September 28.
       That same day, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the information received in
this appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of this Court, i.e., there is no final judgment or
appealable order contained therein. The notice warned that the appeal would be dismissed unless
Appellant amended the information on or before October 9 to show this Court’s jurisdiction.
Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal on October 18, but the amended notice still fails to
show the jurisdiction of this Court.
       In criminal cases, an appellate court has jurisdiction only from a final judgment of
conviction, an appealable order, or where expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State, 271
S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. 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.); TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). Because the trial court has not signed an
appealable order denying Appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus, we dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1 See Ex parte Evans, 611 S.W.3d 86, 88 (Tex. App.—Waco
2020, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction absent signed final order denying
application for writ of habeas corpus).

Opinion delivered October 18, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

         1
          Appellant also has a petition for writ of mandamus pending in this Court, Appellate Cause Number 12-
23-000264-CR.

                                                          2
                                  COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                          JUDGMENT

                                         OCTOBER 18, 2023

                                        NO. 12-23-00248-CR

                               EX PARTE: WILLIAM WALKER

                               Appeal from the 217th District Court
                        of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2022-0666)

                     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.