Opinion
06-23-00217-CR
11-16-2023
SAKHORN KHAMSIRY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Submitted: November 15, 2023
On Appeal from the 451st Judicial District Court Kendall County, Texas Trial Court No. 9134
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Charles van Cleef Justice
A Kendall County grand jury indicted Sakhorn Khamsiry for possession of a controlled substance (trial court cause number 9133) and unlawful possession of a firearm (trial court cause number 9134). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Khamsiry pled guilty to the possession of a controlled substance charge, admitted his guilt to the unlawful possession of a firearm charge, and asked the trial court to consider the unadjudicated firearm possession charge in determining the sentence for the adjudicated possession of a controlled substance charge. Khamsiry filed notices of appeal in both trial court cause numbers 9133 (our cause number 06-23-00216-CR) and 9134 (this matter).
Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 73.001 (Supp.).
In Texas, a party may only appeal when the Texas Legislature has authorized an appeal. Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). When the legislature passes legislation granting a right of appeal, in addition to granting its citizens that substantive right, it also grants the appellate courts of this State jurisdiction to hear such appeals. In the absence of such authorizing legislation, appellate courts are without jurisdiction and have no authority to act. In the criminal context, the Texas Legislature has authorized appeals from written judgments of conviction and a few orders deemed appealable. See Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Because the firearms charge at issue in this case was unadjudicated, the clerk's record does not contain an appealable judgment or order, and on November 9, 2023, we sent Khamsiry a letter advising him of this potential defect in our jurisdiction and affording him an opportunity to demonstrate how we had jurisdiction over the appeal. By letter dated November 13, 2023, Khamsiry conceded that there was no order or final judgment of conviction in this case for the Court to review and that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.
Because there is no appealable order or judgment in the record of this cause, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.