Court Opinion

ID: 4287605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-06-25 08:17:04.693275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:32.137657
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-18-00212-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

EFRAIN LOPEZ GARZA,                                                    Appellant,

                                              v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa
               Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras

      Appellant Efrain Lopez Garza, proceeding pro se, filed a “motion to vacate

sentence and to resentence after allocution” on April 16, 2018. Appellant sought to

appeal a ruling issued on October 19, 2017 which dismissed trial court cause number

CR-17-11635-E “in the interest of justice.”
       On May 3, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the

order from which the appeal was taken was not a final, appealable order and requested

correction of this defect within ten days. The Clerk advised appellant that the appeal

would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected. Appellant has failed to respond to

the Court’s directive.

       Generally, a state appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a

criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v.

State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d
160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). Exceptions to the general rule include:

(1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State,

942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to

reduce bond, TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals

from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal and the

matters before the Court, is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this

Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein. Because there is no appealable order,

we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions, if any, are likewise

DISMISSED.

                                                               DORI CONTRERAS
                                                               Justice

Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the
21st day of June, 2018.

                                            2