Opinion
NO. 01-17-00095-CR
04-11-2017
On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 05-DCR-043408A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 12, 2006, Bruce Egrim Joseph pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault. In accordance with appellant's agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to 35 years' imprisonment. On January 26, 2017, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed an application for writ of habeas corpus filed by appellant without written order. On February 6, 2017, appellant filed a pro se "Notice of Appeal" that does not indicate any underlying judgment or order to be appealed and, instead, requests that this Court order the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they are specifically authorized by statute. See State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02. Generally, a criminal defendant may appeal only from a final judgment. See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n. 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal appeal unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by statute. See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In this case, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because appellant does not appeal from any judgment or order of the trial court. Nor does the record indicate any final judgment or appealable interlocutory order that could serve as the basis for an appeal.
Moreover, to the extent that appellant requests that this Court directly issue a writ of habeas corpus rather than review the denial of a habeas application by the trial court, we lack jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. In criminal matters, our habeas corpus jurisdiction is appellate only and we do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction. See In re Thomas, No. 01-15-00786-CR, 2015 WL 6081429, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 13, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ashorn v. State, 77 S.W.3d 405, 409 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Denby, 627 S.W.2d 435, 435 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, orig. proceeding); see also Chavez v. State, 132 S.W.3d 509, 510 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas relief from a final felony conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3.
Finally, to the extent that appellant seeks to appeal the denial of his writ of habeas corpus by the Court of Criminal Appeals, we lack jurisdiction to review decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 5(a) (unless provided otherwise, Court of Criminal Appeals has final appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases); Ex parte Taylor, No. 03-16-00461-CR, 2016 WL 6407301, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 28, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("We do not have jurisdiction to review the Court of Criminal Appeals's denial of [the] application for writ of habeas corpus or to review the convicting court's findings of fact and conclusions of law."); Ex parte Rogers, Nos. 02-11-00333-CR, 02-11-00334-CR, 02-11-00335-CR, 2011 WL 4414708, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 22, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because appellant attempted to appeal Court of Criminal Appeals' denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus).
Accordingly, because a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order by the trial court is a prerequisite to this Court's appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Huddle. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).