Court Opinion

ID: 9911137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 16:10:41.353402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:56:13.557735
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         No. 04-23-01005-CR

                                         Christopher BRADY,
                                               Appellant

                                                  v.

                                        The STATE of Texas,
                                              Appellee

                     From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2023CR7434
                         Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

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

Delivered and Filed: December 13, 2023

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

           On November 14, 2023, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal that appeared to indicate

he wished to challenge his arraignment. The clerk’s record, which was filed on November 17,

2023, 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.

App. 1990). Because no final judgment of conviction has been signed in this case, it appears the
                                                                                       04-23-01005-CR

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). On November 21, 2023, we ordered appellant

to show cause in writing by December 6, 2023 why this appeal should not be dismissed for want

of jurisdiction.

        On November 30, 2023, the district clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record that contains

an order appointing appellate counsel but does not contain a judgment of conviction or an

appealable interlocutory order. Additionally, appellant has not filed a response to our November

21 show cause order.

        Because the appellate record does not contain a judgment of conviction or other appealable

order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                   PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                 -2-