Court Opinion

ID: 9954386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 10:18:06.875078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:07.678541
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                     NO. 03-23-00779-CR

                            Phillip “Baby Shark” Scott, Appellant

                                                v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

                       FROM COMAL COUNTY, NO. 202262MAG645991

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               On November 16, 2023, Phillip Scott filed a notice of appeal styled against an

“Unknown Prosecutor” before an “Unknown Judge” of the 207th Judicial District Court of

Comal County. After the notice of appeal was filed, the clerk of this Court sent out a late clerk’s

record notice to the Comal County District Clerk’s Office, which later responded that the case

had not been heard in a district court in Comal County. Similarly, this Court received notice

from the clerk’s office of the Comal County Court at Law stating that the case had not been

heard before that court either and further explaining that the trial cause number in the notice

of appeal was for a municipal court case. Additionally, the docketing statement prepared by

Scott and filed after the notice of appeal indicates that the order being appealed was entered on

July 13, 2023, meaning that the notice of appeal filed on November 16, 2023, was filed beyond

the deadline for filing a notice of appeal from an appealable order or judgment. See Tex. R.
App. P. 26.2. For these reasons, the Court directed the clerk to request that Scott file a response

explaining how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal.

               In his response, Scott does not explain why the cause number for the case he

is appealing has a municipal court number, whether he appealed the municipal court’s ruling,

and whether the court to which he appealed issued a final and appealable judgment or order.

Although a defendant may appeal a judgment or conviction in a municipal court, the appeal

must be heard by a county court or similar court before it may be appealed to this Court. See

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 4.08, 45.042 (pertaining to municipal courts); Tex. Gov’t Code

§ 30.00014 (pertaining to municipal courts of record); see also Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2

(Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (noting that there is no common law or constitutional right to appeal and

that right to appeal is purely statutory right); Ford v. State, 20 S.W.3d 777, 779 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2000, no pet.) (explaining that “to the extent that the legislature has created such

a right, one hoping to invoke it must abide by the statutory requirements creating it”).

Accordingly, to the extent that Scott is seeking to appeal a judgment or order from a municipal

court, this Court does not have jurisdiction because nothing in the limited record before us

demonstrates that the municipal court judgment or order was appealed to a county court or

similar court. See Holland v. State, No. 01-17-00273-CR, 2017 WL 3910244, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 7, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

               Additionally, Scott asserts in his response that the appealable judgment or order

was entered by the 207th district court and clarifies that the appealable event occurred on

April 13, 2023. As support, Scott attached a printout of cases in which he was a defendant and

highlights a case with a different cause number than the one he listed in his notice of appeal and

in his response that has an entry for an event occurring on April 13, 2023. To the extent that

                                                2
Scott is seeking to appeal a ruling from that date, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal

expired months before Scott filed a notice of appeal in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2

(providing that notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after sentence is imposed or

appealable order is entered or within 90 days after sentence is imposed if timely motion for

new trial is filed). A notice of appeal that complies with the deadlines set out in the Rules of

Appellate Procedure is essential to vest an appellate court with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State,

981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). “Without a timely filed notice of appeal, we lack

jurisdiction over the appeal.” Swain v. State, 319 S.W.3d 878, 880 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

2010, no pet.).

                  If an appellate court is without jurisdiction over an appeal, it can only dismiss the

appeal. See Sherman v. State, 12 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999, no pet.). For these

reasons, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                __________________________________________
                                                Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: March 22, 2024

Do Not Publish

                                                    3