Opinion
No. 14-06-00091-CR
Memorandum Opinion filed April 20, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 240th District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 41,778. Dismissed.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices YATES and GUZMAN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant filed a pro se "notice of interlocutory accelerated appeal" on January 3, 2006. In his notice, appellant stated that he is appealing "all interlocutory Orders" explicitly and implicitly denying his constitutional rights. The clerk's record in this appeal was filed on March 13, 2006. A defendant's notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the trial court enters an appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id. Generally, a state 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.). Exceptions to the general rule include: (1) certain appeals while 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. Our review of the record does not reveal any appealable orders entered by the trial court within thirty days before the filing of appellant's notice of appeal. The only ruling in the record before this court which is subject to interlocutory appeal, the denial of a further reduction in bond, was signed October 4, 2005. Appellant's notice of appeal is untimely to perfect an appeal from that order. See Tex.R.App.P. 26.2(a)(1). This court has no authority to grant an out-of-time appeal. On March 30, 2006, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court's intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a pro se response on April 4, 2006. In his response, appellant points out that he filed a fourth amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and bail reduction on November 1, 2005. The fourth amended petition and any ruling thereon are not part of the appellate record. Appellant argues that an implicit ruling on his petition is sufficient for appellate review. Appellant's citation to Gutierrez v. State, 36 S.W.3d 509, 510-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001), as authority for reviewing an implicit ruling, is inapplicable to these facts. In Gutierrez, appellant appealed the denial of a motion to suppress after final conviction. Id. An appeal that is not from a final conviction must be filed within thirty days after the trial court enters an appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Alternatively, appellant asserts that his notice of appeal is premature. In a criminal case, a prematurely filed notice of appeal is not effective if filed before the trial court makes a finding of guilt or receives a jury verdict. TEX. R. APP. P. 27.1(b). Because there are no appealable interlocutory orders entered within thirty days before appellant filed his notice of appeal, we have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
By order signed July 22, 2005, the trial court reduced appellant's bond from $75,000 to $65,000 in response to appellant's third amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and bail reduction filed June 14, 2005.