Court Opinion

ID: 9378636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-11 11:08:11.892172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.710050
License: Public Domain

NOS. 12-23-00032-CR
                                          12-23-00033-CR

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                         TYLER, TEXAS

NELSON ISAC FERNANDEZ-LOPEZ,                           §       APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                     §       JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                               §       SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          PER CURIAM
        On January 10, 2023, Nelson Isac Fernandez-Lopez filed a notice of appeal from a
judgment in which sentence was imposed on March 18, 2019. 1 On January 19, 2023, this Court
notified Appellant that the notice of appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, namely,
there is no final judgment or appealable order. We further notified Appellant that the appeal
would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before January 30 to show this
Court’s jurisdiction.
        Appellant’s counsel subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, acknowledging
that there are no additional final judgments or appealable orders that would support jurisdiction.
However, counsel’s motion failed to contain Appellant’s signature. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a)
(“appellant and his or her attorney must sign the written motion to dismiss…”); see also Ex parte
Trapasso, No. 03-02-00017-CR, 2002 WL 534140, at *1, n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 11, 2002,
no pet.) (op., not designated for publication) (overruling motion to dismiss appeal because
appellant had not signed motion as required by Rule 42.2(a)). This Court notified counsel of the

        1
            Appellant was convicted of unlawful interception, use, or disclosure of wire, oral, or electric
communications and engaging in organized criminal activity. This Court affirmed his convictions. See Fernandez-
Lopez v. State, Nos. 12-19-00110-CR, 12-19-00133-CR, 2020 WL 5406241 (Tex. App.—Tyler Sept. 9, 2020, pet.
ref’d) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
defect and allowed until February 24 to file a compliant amended motion, but no amended
motion was ever received. Accordingly, we overrule the motion to dismiss.
         Nevertheless, in criminal cases, an appellate court has jurisdiction only from a final
judgment of conviction, an appealable order, or where expressly granted by law. See Abbott v.
State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standard for determining jurisdiction is
not whether appeal is precluded by law but whether appeal is authorized by law); see also Young
v. State, No. 12-06-00189-CR, 2006 WL 1699585, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 21, 2006, no
pet.) (mem. op. not designation for publication); McIntosh v. State, 110 S.W.3d 51, 52 (Tex.
App.–Waco 2002, no pet.); TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). Appellant previously appealed and this
Court affirmed his convictions. See Fernandez-Lopez v. State, Nos. 12-19-00110-CR, 12-19-
00133-CR, 2020 WL 5406241 (Tex. App.—Tyler Sept. 9, 2020, pet. ref’d) (per curiam) (mem.
op., not designated for publication). Our mandate issued on December 18, 2020 and Appellant’s
convictions are final. He is not entitled to a second appeal of those same convictions. See
Confer v. State, No. 03-19-00043-CR, 2019 WL 908289, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 22,
2019, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
         Accordingly, because there is no new final judgment or other appealable order over
which this Court has jurisdiction, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f).
Opinion delivered March 8, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          2
                                  COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                            MARCH 8, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00032-CR

                             NELSON ISAC FERNANDEZ-LOPEZ,
                                        Appellant
                                           V.
                                  THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                        Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0079-18)

                    THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being
considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.
                    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision
be certified to the court below for observance.
                    By per curiam opinion.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                            MARCH 8, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00033-CR

                             NELSON ISAC FERNANDEZ-LOPEZ,
                                        Appellant
                                           V.
                                  THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                        Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1652-18)

                    THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being
considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.
                    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision
be certified to the court below for observance.
                    By per curiam opinion.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.