Orlando Campos v. State ( 2018 )

NUMBER 13-18-00322-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
ORLANDO CAMPOS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 156th District Court
of Bee County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras
Appellant Orlando Campos, proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal
from trial court cause number B-15-2049-0-CR-B in the 156th District Court of Bee
County, Texas.1 The notice of appeal states that there is no judgment and the case has
1 Appellant has pursued other pro se appeals from this same trial court cause number. See
Campos v. State, No. 13-18-00221-CR, 2018 WL 2440517, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 31, 2018,
no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Campos v. State, 13-18-00071-CR, 2018 WL
been dismissed. On July 23, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it
appeared that the documents on file did not contain an appealable order. Appellant
attempts to appeal the trial court’s order denying his post-conviction motion for forensic
DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; however, the
record before this Court indicates the trial court cause number B-15-2049-0-CR-B was
dismissed and there is no judgment of conviction or other appealable order. The Clerk
requested that appellant correct this defect within ten days and notified appellant that the
appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected. Appellant has failed to
correct this defect.
In Texas, appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they are specifically
authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011);
see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).
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, 343
S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961); Ex parte Ragston, 402 S.W.3d 472, 477 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013), aff'd sub nom. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996,
no pet.). The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in
a criminal appeal absent express statutory authority. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792,
794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 907 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
1192617, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 8, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication);
Campos v. State, 13-16-00482-CR, 2016 WL 5941881, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 13, 2016, no
pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
2
2000, 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. See also Bridle, 16 S.W.3d at 908 n.1.
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 here. 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.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
9th day of August, 2018.
3