Opinion
05-22-01254-CR 05-22-01255-CR5-22-01256-CR 05-22-01257-CR
01-26-2023
JOSEPH K. DINGLER, Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. CR19-1769, CR 19-1770, CR19-1771, CR 19-1772
Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Kennedy
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
Joseph K. Dingler filed a pro se notice of appeal in these cases. The notice of appeal did not identify any judgments or other appealable orders. It appears from the notice of appeal that appellant is complaining about the trial court's refusal to remove his appointed attorney and appoint him other counsel and complaining of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Rockwall County Clerk filed a letter with this Court stating, "there is not a judgment in any of the cases identified above due to his not appearing for the Pre-Trial or the Jury Trial." The court reporter filed a letter stating,
"These cases were set for jury trial on August 23, 2022, and the defendant failed to appear." We sent appellant a letter stating we questioned our jurisdiction as there did not appear to be a final judgment or other appealable order in these case. We asked appellant to file a response identifying any judgment or other appealable order in these cases. Appellant filed a response, which discussed many issues, but it did not identify any judgments or other appealable orders in the cases. Much of appellant's response concerned the lack of rulings by the trial court.
We have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal unless the trial court has entered a judgment or appealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), 26.2(a)(1); State v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Henderson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 735, 735-36 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.). Because appellant has not identified any judgment or other appealable order before this Court, we conclude we lack jurisdiction over these appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.