Court Opinion

ID: 2769751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-01-14 09:17:30.75795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:51:56.956496
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-14-00477-CR
                           ____________________

                    RODNEY KEITH HAZLIP, Appellant

                                        V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________           ______________

                   On Appeal from the 221st District Court
                        Montgomery County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 10-04-04149 CR
________________________________________________________            _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Rodney Keith Hazlip filed a notice of appeal regarding the trial court’s order

of October 9, 2014, which denied a motion that Hazlip filed in his criminal case

after his conviction was affirmed on appeal. See Hazlip v. State, No. 09-11-00086-

CR, 2012 WL 4466352, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Sept. 26, 2012, pet. ref’d)

(mem. op.) (not designated for publication), cert. denied by Hazlip v. Texas, 134
S. Ct. 2704 (2014). On November 13, 2014, we notified the parties that our

jurisdiction was not apparent from the notice of appeal, and that we would dismiss

                                         1
the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless we received a response showing grounds

for continuing the appeal. Hazlip filed a response, but failed to demonstrate

jurisdiction in that response.

       “Jurisdiction must be expressly given to the courts of appeals in a statute.”

Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The general right of

appeal in a criminal case is limited to appeal from a judgment of conviction. See

Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 695-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see also Tex.

Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (West 2006). Hazlip’s motion sought the release

of juror card information. A trial court may disclose juror information in certain

circumstances, but the statute that authorizes the trial court’s action does not

expressly authorize an appeal of an adverse ruling on a request that is made in a

closed case. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 35.29 (West Supp. 2014).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                             ________________________________
                                                   STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                       Chief Justice

Submitted on January 13, 2015
Opinion Delivered January 14, 2015
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                         2