Opinion
No. 10-06-00269-CR.
Opinion delivered and filed December 20, 2006.
Appeal from the 54th District Court, McLennan County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2003-216-C.
Before CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY, JUSTICE VANCE, and JUSTICE REYNA (Chief Justice Gray dissenting).
OPINION
Andrew Crawford seeks to appeal a post-conviction order under section 501.014(e) of the Government Code requiring that a certain percentage of the funds in his inmate trust account be withdrawn and paid toward the court costs and fees which were incurred during his prosecution. Because this is a criminal law matter and because no statute authorizes such an appeal, we will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Crawford was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment pursuant to a plea bargain in February 2004. The court signed the order Crawford now seeks to appeal in July 2006.
Section 501.014(e) of the Government Code provides:
On notification by a court, the department shall withdraw from an inmate's account any amount the inmate is ordered to pay by order of the court under this subsection. The department shall make a payment under this subsection as ordered by the court to either the court or the party specified in the court order. The department is not liable for withdrawing or failing to withdraw money or making payments or failing to make payments under this subsection. The department shall make withdrawals and payments from an inmate's account under this subsection according to the following schedule of priorities:
(1) as payment in full for all orders for child support; (2) as payment in full for all orders for restitution; (3) as payment in full for all orders for reimbursement of the Texas Department of Human Services for financial assistance provided for the child's health needs under Chapter 31, Human Resources Code, to a child of the inmate; (4) as payment in full for all orders for court fees and costs; (5) as payment in full for all orders for fines; and (6) as payment in full for any other court order, judgment, or writ.
TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 501.014(e) (Vernon 2004).
Uncertain of our jurisdiction and in response to Crawford's motion for appointment of counsel, this Court requested briefing by the parties on the following issues:
(1) whether a defendant is entitled to court-appointed counsel under these circumstances; (2) whether there are any administrative procedures which must be exhausted before an order under section 501.014(e) can be appealed; (3) whether an order under section 501.014(e) can be appealed in any event; and (4) if so, who are the proper parties to that appeal.
Only the prosecuting attorney has responded to this request for briefing. In this response, the prosecuting attorney contends that an order under section 501.014(e) is not an appealable order. We agree.
Crawford requested an extension of time to respond but did not serve a copy of his request on the State. The Clerk of this Court notified Crawford by letter dated October 31, 2006 that all pleadings must include proof of service, ordered Crawford to provide proof of service for his extension request within 14 days, and informed Crawford that his extension request may be struck if he failed to comply. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i), 9.5(d). Crawford has never responded to this notice.
This Court has appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case only when expressly provided by law. Kelly v. State, 151 S.W.3d 683, 685 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, no pet.); Ex parte McGregor, 145 S.W.3d 824, 825 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.); Sanchez v. State, 112 S.W.3d 311, 311 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (per curiam); Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, pet. dism'd); see also Rushing v. State, 85 S.W.3d 283, 285 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (right to appeal "is derived entirely from statute"). No statute authorizes an appeal from an order under section 501.014(e).
This is a criminal case because it is "`closely connected' with the criminal case in which appellant was convicted." See Kutzner v. State, 75 S.W.3d 427, 429 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002); Kelly v. State, 151 S.W.3d 683, 685-86 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, no pet.).
Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Because this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal, we do not address the other issues identified in the request for briefing. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (appellate court " must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal").
Appeal dismissed