Evangelos Pagonis v. State ( 2019 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00858-CR
Evangelos PAGONIS,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008CR6730
Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 16, 2019
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Evangelos Pagonis pleaded nolo
contendere to the offenses of indecency with a child by exposure and indecency with a child by
sexual contact. The trial court sentenced appellant on February 10, 2010.
On November 2, 2018, this court received a document titled “Appeal Order for
Commutation of Sentence,” in which appellant appears to request that his sentences be commuted
because his deportation to Canada is imminent.
04-18-00858-CR
A defendant may appeal a judgment imposing a sentence or another appealable order. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2; see also Guthrie-Nail v. State, 543 S.W.3d 225, 226-27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2018) (noting that appellate jurisdiction is invoked when an appellant timely files a notice of appeal
following the imposition of a sentence or the trial court enters an appealable order). It did not
appear from the record that appellant sought to appeal the judgments imposing his sentences or
any other appealable order. Therefore, in an order dated November 28, 2018, we ordered appellant
to show cause in writing on or before December 10, 2018 why this appeal should not be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellant did not file a response by that date. However, appellant filed a letter that he
signed on December 12, 2018 and was received in this court on December 19, 2018, in which he
lists several complaints regarding what he characterizes as “the wrongfulness of the court.”
Appellant refers to improper transcripts of a hearing appellant contends did not take place, as well
as plea bargain papers appellant states he did not sign. Appellant additionally briefly discusses the
Vienna Convention, his request for a pardon, and false evidence. Appellant’s letter does not
address whether this court has jurisdiction over the matter that is the subject of his appeal.
The record in this case indicates appellant is not seeking to appeal the judgments imposing
his sentences or any other appealable order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-