Court Opinion

ID: 9412668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 12:08:15.607534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:26.684069
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-23-00379-CV

                           Phillip G. “Baby Shark” Scott, Appellant

                                                 v.

         Aaron Seymour, Judge Daniel Mills, and Judge Andrew Leonie, Appellees

               FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
        NO. CR2023-382, THE HONORABLE DANIEL H. MILLS, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               After appellant Phillip G. “Baby Shark” Scott filed what he described as an

interlocutory appeal, this Court’s clerk sent Scott a letter asking for a response explaining the

basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over this appeal. The letter warned that, if Scott did not respond

within ten days with an adequate explanation of the basis on which this Court could exercise of

jurisdiction, this appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

               As a general rule, only final judgments are appealable, and interlocutory orders

are not. GJP, Inc. v. Ghosh, 251 S.W.3d 854, 867 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, no pet.); see Texas

A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 841 (Tex. 2007). This Court has jurisdiction

over a limited number of interlocutory appeals in civil matters. See, e.g. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code § 51.014. A party in a criminal case may appeal only from judgments of conviction or

interlocutory orders authorized by statute. Mack v. State, 549 S.W.3d 746, 747 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2017, pet. ref’d); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02; Tex. R. App. P. 25.2. Scott
complains of actions by a lawyer he says is representing him in a separate case but not this one

and asserts that the trial judge must recuse himself, but has not demonstrated that the trial court

has taken any action or made any order that gives us jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal.

               More than ten days have passed since this Court asked Scott to explain the basis

for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over any issue he raised in this interlocutory appeal. We

find no basis on which to exercise jurisdiction over this appeal.

               We dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

                                              __________________________________________
                                              Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 26, 2023

                                                 2