Ex Parte Jason Eric Lenderman ( 2022 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00681-CR
Ex parte Jason Eric Lenderman
FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
NO. 21DCR85475, THE HONORABLE PAUL L. LEPAK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jason Eric Lenderman stands charged by indictment with possession of
methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. See Tex. Health
& Safety Code § 481.115(a), (d). He seeks to appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals’
(CCA) order denying without written order his motion for leave to file an application for writ of
habeas corpus.
Lenderman appears to understand incorrectly that the trial court denied the
motion. He states that he “is appealing the 264th District Court[’]s decision of Denial Without
Written Order the Motion for Leave to File the Original Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.” However, although he asserts that the trial judge
abused his discretion in denying the motion, Lenderman notes that he “was made aware [of the
denial] through notification from the Court of Criminal Appeals . . . dated 8/10/2022,” and the
record contains an official notice from the CCA advising Lenderman that it denied his motion on
that date. Moreover, the trial court explained on Lenderman’s certificate of defendant’s right of
appeal that he “wants to appeal the denial of leave to file the original application for writ of
habeas corpus. This is/was an action of the [CCA], not the trial court.”
Because Lenderman attempts to appeal a decision from the CCA, we lack
jurisdiction over the appeal. See State ex rel. Wilson v. Briggs, 351 S.W.2d 892, 894 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1961) (“The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort in this state in
criminal matters. This being so, no other court of this state has authority to overrule or
circumvent its decisions, or disobey its mandates.”); Tex. Const. art. V, § 5 (providing that Court
of Criminal Appeals has final appellate jurisdiction on all questions of law in criminal matters);
see also Ex parte Davis, No. 02-11-00526-CR, 2012 WL 335862, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
Feb. 2, 2012, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because defendant attempted to
appeal from CCA’s denial of motion for leave to file original application for writ of mandamus).
Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1
__________________________________________
Edward Smith, Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: December 16, 2022
Do Not Publish
1
In addition, all pending motions are dismissed as moot.
2