Opinion
NO. 02-16-00296-CR
09-15-2016
STEPHEN STEPHON WILLIAMS APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM THE 89TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 39,735-C MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant Stephen Stephon Williams attempts to appeal from the trial court's July 13, 2016 order denying his "Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Sentence," which the trial court denied for want of jurisdiction.
In 2003, a jury convicted Appellant of two counts of aggravated robbery and assessed his punishment at sixty-five years' confinement and a $10,000 fine for each count. See Williams v. State, No. 02-03-00148-CR, 2004 WL 2320370, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 14, 2004, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1018 (2005). After we affirmed Appellant's conviction, id., the court of criminal appeals refused his petition for discretionary review and then denied his state habeas corpus application, and a federal district court subsequently denied his federal habeas corpus petition. Williams v. Thaler, No. 7:07-CV-077-O, 2010 WL 3359453, at *1, *3-7 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2010). In 2014, we denied Appellant's petition for writ of mandamus in which he also argued that the trial court's judgments of convictions were void. See In re Williams, No. 02-14-00181-CV, 2014 WL 2809054, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 19, 2014, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.). --------
On July 27, 2016, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court's order did not appear to be an appealable order. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) ("We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted to us by law."). We informed Appellant that we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless, by August 8, 2016, he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.
Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ("[T]he exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07."); see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991, orig. proceeding) (stating that the court of criminal appeals is the "only court with jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings").
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
BONNIE SUDDERTH
JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: September 15, 2016