Opinion
NUMBER 13-17-00074-CR NUMBER 13-17-00075-CR
03-30-2017
RICKY JOE URENDA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Contreras, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
Appellant Ricky Joe Urenda, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from this Court's opinions denying two petitions for writ of mandamus that Urenda filed with this Court. See In re Urenda, Nos. 13-17-00017-CR & 13-17-00018-CR, 2017 WL 219121, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 13, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam, not designated for publication). In these original proceedings, appellant sought to compel the trial court to dismiss the "indictment, information, or complaint" filed by the State of Texas against the relator in trial court cause number CR-2425-15-H in the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County and trial court cause number 15-03907-G in the County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County, and docketed in our respective causes as 13-17-00017-CR and 13-17-00018-CR. See id. This Court denied relief. See id. at *2.
On February 1, 2017, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the orders or judgment which he was attempting to appeal were not appealable orders, and requested correction of these defects within ten days or the appeals would be dismissed. Appellant has failed to respond to the Court's directives.
An appellate court has the obligation to determine its own jurisdiction. See Ramirez v. State, 89 S.W.3d 222, 225 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.); Yarbrough v. State, 57 S.W.3d 611, 615 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref'd); Laureles v. State, No. 13-13-00535-CR, 2014 WL 1669102, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Apr. 24, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The courts of appeals derive their authority and jurisdiction from Article V, section 6 of the Texas Constitution, which provides:
Said Court of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction co-extensive with the limits of their respective districts, which shall extend to all cases of which the District Courts or County Courts have original or appellate jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law.TEX.CONST. Article V, section 6(a). The standard for determining appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is expressly authorized by law. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
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
The Court, having examined and fully considered the notices of appeal and the matters before the Court, is of the opinion that there are not any appealable orders and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein. Because there are no appealable orders, we DISMISS the appeals for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED.
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 30th day of March, 2017.