Opinion
Nos. 05-04-00518-CR, 05-04-00519-CR, 05-04-00520-CR, 05-04-00521-CR.
Opinion Filed April 30, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F96-53877-LJ, F97-01137-Rsj.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, RICHTER, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joseph Dingler filed notices of appeal complaining of the trial court's refusal to rule on his motions for appeal bonds and for judgments nunc pro tunc giving him additional back time credit on his sentences. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. As a general rule, appellate courts may consider appeals by criminal defendants only after conviction. Ex parte Wright, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.). Courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders absent express authority. See Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589. Moreover, an appeal must be perfected either from a trial court's judgment or an appealable order. See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(a)(2). Where there is no sentence to be appealed or no appealable order, an appellate court has no jurisdiction. See Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589-90; Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 643-44 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1996, no pet.) In these cases, appellant is not appealing from the trial court's orders ruling on his motions, he is appealing the trial court's "refusal" to rule on the motions. Because there are no appealable orders before the Court, we lack jurisdiction over the appeals. See Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 590; Waller, 931 S.W.2d at 644. We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.
Appellant has two other appeals from his probation revocations in the same trial court numbers pending in cause nos. 05-03-01552-CR and 05-03-01553-CR. Those appeals are not affected by this opinion.