Opinion
NO. 12-13-00328-CR
12-12-2013
DAWALUS M. HAMPTON, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Dawalus M. Hampton, attempts to appeal from an order denying his motion for free documents and trial records. As a general rule, an appeal in a criminal case may be taken only from a judgment of conviction. See Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App.1961). However, there are certain narrow exceptions. See Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.) (listing exceptions). The order Appellant complains of is not a judgment of conviction nor does it fall within any exception to the general rule. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal.
On November 6, 2013, this court notified Appellant that the information received in this appeal does not include a final judgment or other appealable order and therefore does not show the jurisdiction of this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2. Appellant was further notified that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before November 9, 2013, to show the jurisdiction of this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3. This deadline has now passed, and Appellant has neither shown the jurisdiction of this court nor otherwise responded to its November 6, 2013 notice. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
JUDGMENT
NO. 12-13-00328-CR
DAWALUS M. HAMPTON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Appeal from the 7th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0608-12)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.