Court Opinion

ID: 9939970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 15:13:25.072949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:10.104167
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         No. 04-23-01110-CR

                                     Jose A. VILLARREAL Jr.,
                                              Appellant

                                                  v.

                                        The STATE of Texas,
                                              Appellee

                     From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2020CR3383
                            Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 7, 2024

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

           On December 18, 2023, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal that appeared to indicate

he wished to challenge the “magistrate, pre-trial, and grand jury” proceedings in the underlying

criminal case. The clerk’s record, which was filed on January 8, 2024, does not contain a judgment

of conviction or other appealable order. Additionally, the district clerk has informed this court that

appellant has not yet been tried or sentenced in this case.

           Generally, a criminal defendant may only appeal from a final judgment of conviction. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02; State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim.
                                                                                       04-23-01110-CR

App. 1990). Because no final judgment of conviction has been signed in this case, it appears the

ruling, if any, appellant seeks to challenge is interlocutory. The courts of appeals lack jurisdiction

to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Ragston

v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). For these reasons, on January 10, 2024, we

ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction.

        On January 18, 2024, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a response to our order. Counsel

represented that he had reviewed the record and “found no reason that this Court should not dismiss

this appeal for want of jurisdiction.” He also represented that he had spoken with appellant, who

“agreed that this Court does not have jurisdiction of this appeal[.]” Accordingly, we dismiss this

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                   PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                 -2-