Court Opinion

ID: 9914574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-02 16:08:27.043565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:08.630658
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         No. 04-23-00948-CR

                                           Roscell HINES,
                                             Appellant

                                                  v.

                                        The STATE of Texas,
                                              Appellee

                   From the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 22-0495-CR-B
                             Honorable Daniel H. Mills, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 27, 2023

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

           On October 17, 2023 and November 2, 2023, appellant filed pro se notices of appeal

indicating that he wished to challenge the trial court’s rulings on several pretrial motions. The

clerk’s record, which was filed on November 6, 2023, does not contain a judgment of conviction

or other appealable order. Additionally, the district clerk has informed this court that appellant has

not yet been tried or sentenced in this case.

           Generally, a criminal defendant may only appeal from a final judgment of conviction. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02; State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim.
                                                                                    04-23-00948-CR

App. 1990). Because no final judgment of conviction has been signed in this case, the rulings

appellant seeks to challenge appear to be interlocutory. The courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to

review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Ragston v.

State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). On November 7, 2023, we ordered appellant to

show cause in writing by November 22, 2023 why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction.

        On November 9, 2023, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his docketing

statement. On November 15, 2023, he filed a motion requesting a change of venue in the trial court

and/or recusal of the trial court judge. Appellant’s motions do not address our November 7 show

cause order, and he has not otherwise responded to our order.

        On December 5, 2023 and December 6, 2023, the district clerk filed supplemental clerk’s

records. The supplemental clerk’s records do not contain a final judgment of conviction or an

appealable interlocutory order.

        Because the appellate record does not contain a judgment of conviction or other appealable

order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We deny appellant’s pending motions as

moot.

                                                 PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                               -2-