Court Opinion

ID: 4420006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-07-25 14:53:42.516827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:51:06.719776
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-19-00339-CR

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

KEVIN PAUL CARTER,                                                          Appellant,

                                           v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 377th District Court
                   of Victoria County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

             Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Perkes
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

      Appellant Kevin Paul Carter, proceeding pro se, filed a “notice of appeal”

“concerning the denial of a motion for discovery” from cause number 16-12-29777-D in

the 377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas. On July 8, 2019, the Clerk of this

Court notified appellant that it appeared that there was not a final, appealable judgment
in this case and requested correction of this defect if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 37.1. The Clerk notified appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect

was not cured. In response, appellant filed a motion to abate the appeal. Appellant

contends that his “sole issue or purpose [was] for the court to provide him. . . a request

for post-conviction discovery [not] a notice of appeal.”

       In Texas, appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they are specifically

authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011);

see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02.       Generally, a state appellate court only has

jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final

judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961);

Ex parte Ragston, 402 S.W.3d 472, 477 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013), aff'd sub

nom. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); McKown v. State, 915
S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). The courts of appeals do not

have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal appeal absent express

statutory authority. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);

Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 907 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). Exceptions

to the general rule include: (1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community

supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from

the denial of a motion to reduce bond, TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161;

and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969
S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. See

also Bridle, 16 S.W.3d at 908 n.1.

                                             2
      The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal and the

matters before the Court, is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this

Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters here. Because there is no appealable order, we

DENY the motion to abate and we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All

pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED.

                                                       LETICIA HINOJOSA
                                                       Justice

Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the
25th day of July, 2019.

                                            3