Court Opinion

ID: 9838972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-09 10:09:52.986004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:02.645804
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00184-CR

                           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                      TYLER, TEXAS

                                                   §      APPEAL FROM THE 217TH
EX PARTE:
                                                   §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
ZACCHEUAS ALBRO
                                                   §      ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                       PER CURIAM
       Zaccheuas Albro, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal to complain of his $500,000 bond
amount. He provides a copy of a letter, dated January 4, 2023, from his then counsel, in which
counsel states that he “will not appeal a frivolous matter as denial of bail.” The Angelina County
online records reflect that Appellant has new counsel and that an application for writ of habeas
corpus was filed on May 22, 2023. There is no indication that the trial court ruled on the habeas
application. On July 14, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the information
received in this appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of this Court, i.e., there is no final judgment
or appealable order contained therein. The notice warned that the appeal would be dismissed
unless Appellant amended the information on or before July 24 to show this Court’s jurisdiction.
This deadline passed without a response from Appellant or an amended notice of appeal. The
Clerk of this Court subsequently sent the same notice to Appellant’s court appointed counsel,
giving a deadline of August 11. Again, this Court received no response. This Court did receive
notice that Appellant’s court appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw.
       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). Because the trial court has not signed an
appealable order denying Appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus, we dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Ex parte Evans, 611 S.W.3d 86, 88 (Tex. App.—Waco
2020, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction absent signed final order denying
application for writ of habeas corpus).
Opinion delivered September 6, 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

                                        SEPTEMBER 6, 2023

                                        NO. 12-23-00184-CR

                              EX PARTE: ZACCHEUAS ALBRO

                               Appeal from the 217th District Court
                        of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2022-0590)

                   THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same
being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and
that the 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.