Court Opinion

ID: 9893709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 09:54:16.120891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:57.682606
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________

          No. 02-23-00233-CR
     ___________________________

      JOSEPH DINGLER, Appellant

                     V.

         THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 432nd District Court
         Tarrant County, Texas
        Trial Court No. 1749454

    Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
   Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellant Joseph Dingler is awaiting trial on a drug-possession charge.

Although he has appointed counsel, Dingler, acting pro se, filed a document entitled

“*SPECIAL APPEARANCE*: Notice of Appeal and Brief on Appeal.” We wrote to

Dingler expressing our concern that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal because the

trial court has not entered any appealable orders. We explained that in criminal cases,

our jurisdiction is generally limited to appeals from conviction judgments. See McKown

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

warned Dingler that unless he or any party filed a response showing grounds for

continuing the appeal, we could dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R.

App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3.

       Dingler’s appointed counsel has not responded, but Dingler has. In his pro se

responses, Dingler asserts that the trial court lacks personal and subject-matter

jurisdiction and complains about his appointed counsel’s representation and the trial

court’s administration of his case.1 He also asks for additional time to further respond

to our jurisdictional inquiry. In addition to his response, Dingler has filed motions to

       1
         In one of his responses, Dingler requests that we alternatively construe his
filings as a petition for writ of mandamus. We have done so, and we deny mandamus
relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3, 52.8(a); In re Commitment of Renshaw, 672 S.W.3d 426,
427–28 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding) (directing court of appeals to consider
Renshaw’s alternative request for mandamus relief).

                                           2
disqualify the trial-court judge and to disqualify and substitute Dingler’s appointed

counsel.

      In criminal cases, we generally have jurisdiction over appeals by criminal

defendants only after conviction, and we have no “jurisdiction to review interlocutory

orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted to us by law.” McKown,

915 S.W.2d at 161. Here, Dingler’s case is still pending in the trial court, and there is

no conviction judgment. And Dingler did not identify in his response any appealable

interlocutory orders. Accordingly, we deny Dingler’s request for additional time to

respond to our letter and his pending motions, and we dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.

                                                      /s/ Elizabeth Kerr
                                                      Elizabeth Kerr
                                                      Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 26, 2023

                                           3