From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grable v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston
Aug 5, 2004
No. 14-04-00530-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 5, 2004)

Opinion

No. 14-04-00530-CR

Memorandum Opinion filed August 5, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 764,539. Dismissed.

Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, HUDSON, and FROST.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appellant's appeal from his conviction was dismissed on May 16, 2003, in cause number 14-02-335-CR, because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. On May 12, 2004, appellant filed a "Writ of Mandamus to Compel," claiming the state and appellant's trial counsel failed to perform their "ministerial duty of disclosing to the trial court on the record the terms and conditions under which petitioner entered his plea." The trial court denied this petition on June 24, 2004. Appellant is appealing the denial of the writ. Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). The exceptions include: (1) certain appeals while the defendant is on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. Because appellant's appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

Appellant has filed numerous post-conviction motions and appeals in this trial court cause. We have dismissed each of these appeals for lack of jurisdiction. On September 25, 2003, this Court dismissed an appeal from the trial court's refusal to rule on appellant's "Petition for Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment," holding that the appeal did not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction. Appellant filed three more appeals from the same trial court cause, two of which challenged the trial court's refusal to rule on appellant's "Petition for Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment," and one that challenged the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to recuse. These appeals were dismissed for want of jurisdiction on January 29, 2004. Appellant subsequently filed two more appeals from the same trial court cause, one from the denial of a motion to recuse and one from the denial of a petition for a court of inquiry, which were dismissed by opinion dated May 20, 2004. On July 29, 2004, we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from the trial court's denial of a request for nunc pro tunc judgment.


Summaries of

Grable v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston
Aug 5, 2004
No. 14-04-00530-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 5, 2004)
Case details for

Grable v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES LEE GRABLE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston

Date published: Aug 5, 2004

Citations

No. 14-04-00530-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 5, 2004)