Opinion
No. 10-07-00113-CR
Opinion delivered and filed October 10, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2002-1133-C. Appeal dismissed
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 18, 2007, Appellant Steven Frank Goad filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's September 6, 2006 order that, in effect, garnishes funds from Goad's inmate trust account to satisfy court costs from his July 17, 2003 conviction. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 501.014(e) (Vernon 2004). We notified Goad that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was not timely filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.2(a)(1); Martinez v. State, No. 10-07-00142-CR, 2007 WL 2200156 (Tex.App.-Waco Aug. 1, 2007, no pet. h.). In response, Goad, who is pro se, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal and concedes that we lack jurisdiction of this appeal. This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. (Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment with a note, but without a separate opinion. Again the distinction between a civil appeal/proceeding and a criminal appeal/proceeding should control how we proceed in this proceeding. The Court has characterized it as a criminal proceeding by designating it "CR." See TEX. R. APP. P. 12.2(a)(4). If it is properly designated as a criminal proceeding, the Court should inquire about whether Goad is entitled to the appointment of counsel. Goad has contended that this is a postjudgment garnishment proceeding. As a self-represented civil litigant, Goad is entitled to seek dismissal of his appeal. I concur only in the judgment of the Court which dismisses the appeal.)