Opinion
03-24-00524-CR
08-22-2024
Luis Cantu, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
Do Not Publish
FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. CR2017-007D, THE HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING
Before Baker, Smith, and Theofanis, Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Edward Smith, Justice.
Appellant Luis Cantu has filed a pro se notice of appeal from the "final judgment rendered on July 31, 2024." The District Clerk's Information Sheet indicates that Cantu is represented by appointed counsel in the trial court, has pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and has not yet been sentenced. A status report filed by the court reporter states that "[n]o judgment has been entered" and that Cantu's attorney "did not file or know about [the] appeal."
Cantu has no right to hybrid representation, and because he is represented by counsel in the trial court, his notice of appeal presents nothing for our review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Scarbrough v. State, 777 S.W.2d 83, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Moreover, we lack jurisdiction over an appeal from a conviction where the trial court has not pronounced sentence. See Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 287, 289-90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding that there is no "conviction" to appeal before a sentence is rendered); Saunders v. State, No. 07-23-00237-CR, 2023 WL 4753763, at *1 (Tex. App.- Amarillo July 25, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("Because no pronouncement of sentence or appealable order has been entered by the trial court, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal.").
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to Cantu's refiling a notice of appeal once sentence has been pronounced and a judgment of conviction rendered. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Aguilera v. State, No. 04-23-00714-CR, 2023 WL 6134783, at *1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Sept. 20, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction because record reflects appellant is awaiting sentencing).