Grable, Charles Lee v. State ( 2004 )

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 5, 2004

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 5, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

      NO. 14-04-00530-CR

  

____________

CHARLES LEE GRABLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 764,539

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant=s appeal from his conviction was dismissed on May 16, 2003, in cause number 14-02-335-CR, because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.  On May 12, 2004, appellant filed a AWrit of Mandamus to Compel,@ claiming the state and appellant=s trial counsel failed to perform their Aministerial duty of disclosing to the trial court on the record the terms and conditions under which petitioner entered his plea.@  The trial court denied this petition on June 24, 2004. Appellant is appealing the denial of the writ.^[1]

Generally, an 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.).  The exceptions include:  (1) certain appeals while the defendant is 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.   Because appellant=s appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 5, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Hudson, and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

---

^[1]  Appellant has filed numerous post-conviction motions and appeals in this trial court cause.  We have dismissed each of these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.  On September 25, 2003, this Court dismissed an appeal from the trial court=s refusal to rule on appellant=s APetition for Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment,@ holding that the appeal did not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction.  Appellant filed three more appeals from the same trial court cause,  two of which challenged the trial court=s refusal to rule on appellant=s APetition for Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment,@ and one that challenged the trial court=s denial of appellant=s motion to recuse.  These appeals were dismissed for want of jurisdiction on January 29, 2004. Appellant subsequently filed two more appeals from the same trial court cause, one from the denial of a motion to recuse and one from the denial of a petition for a court of inquiry, which were dismissed by opinion dated May 20, 2004.  On July 29, 2004, we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from the trial court=s denial of a request for nunc pro tunc judgment.