Court Opinion

ID: 9961189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 08:15:36.411178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:26.250181
License: Public Domain

In The
                               Court of Appeals
                      Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                      No. 07-24-00061-CR

                           EX PARTE NATHAN GENE COLLINS

                           On Appeal from the 320th District Court
                                   Potter County, Texas
              Trial Court No. 083186-D-CR, Honorable Steven Denny, Presiding

                                        April 15, 2024
                              MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Appellant, Nathan Gene Collins, is under indictment for unlawful possession of a

firearm by a felon.1 Although represented by trial counsel, Appellant filed an “Application

for Writ of Habeas Corpus” in the trial court proceeding pro se. Appellant subsequently

filed a notice of appeal, pro se, from the trial court’s purported order denying the habeas

application. Because no such order has been issued by the trial court, we dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

       1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(e).
        We have jurisdiction in a criminal case to consider an appeal from a judgment of

guilt or where jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State, 271

S.W.3d 694, 697–98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). To perfect an appeal from the denial of

habeas relief, there must be a signed, appealable order. Ex parte Thompson, No. 05-21-

00752-CR, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 716, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2022, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication). Here, the record does not reflect that the trial

court entered a written order denying Appellant’s habeas application.                      Accordingly,

Appellant’s notice of appeal does not confer jurisdiction upon this Court.2

        Because Appellant has not presented a judgment of conviction or appealable order

for review, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                 Per Curiam

Do not publish.

        2 By letter of March 7, 2024, we notified Appellant that no judgment or appealable order had been

entered by the trial court and directed him to show how we have jurisdiction over this appeal by March 18.
Appellant has not filed a response or had any further communication with this Court to date.
                                                    2