Court Opinion

ID: 9379694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 08:09:30.774664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.976211
License: Public Domain

In The
                              Court of Appeals
                     Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                    No. 07-23-00048-CV

                       DOUGLAS RAY RICHARDS, APPELLANT

                                               V.

                           THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                                     March 15, 2023
                             MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Appellant, Douglas Ray Richards, acting pro se, attempts to appeal from a

“notification to prison officials to withdraw funds” from his inmate trust account. We

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

       Generally, an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal

defendant only from a judgment of conviction or where appellate jurisdiction has been

expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008). A “notice” to withdraw funds is not a judgment or order, but a notification from the

trial court that informs prison officials of an inmate’s financial obligations and directs
officials to withdraw funds. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 501.014(e); Harrell v. State, 286

S.W.3d 315, 316 n.1, 321 (Tex. 2009). The notice of appeal filed by Richards does not

demonstrate that he filed any post-notification motion in a trial court resulting in a final

order. An order ruling on such a motion may be appealable. See Ramirez v. State, 318

S.W.3d 906, 907–08 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, no pet.) (outlining the procedure for

challenging a notice of withdrawal). At this time, however, we have no appealable order

in this case.

       By letter of February 7, 2023, we notified Richards that it did not appear we had

jurisdiction over the appeal and directed him to show grounds for continuing the appeal

by February 17, or we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Richards did not

respond to our letter and has had no further communication with this Court to date.

       Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                               Per Curiam

                                             2