noting that defendant’s general right to appeal under Article 44.02 “has always been limited to appeal from a ‘final judgment’”
How later courts described this case
- noting that defendant’s general right to appeal under Article 44.02 “has always been limited to appeal from a ‘final judgment’”
- holding that court’s judgment discharging criminal defendant from liability was not appealable judgment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-15-00412-CR
NO. 03-15-00413-CR
NO. 03-15-00414-CR
Adam Perez, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOS. D-1-DC-14-100090, D-1-DC-14-100091 & D-1-DC-14-100092
HONORABLE CLIFFORD A. BROWN, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Adam Perez filed notices of appeal seeking to challenge his “convictions” in three
district court causes. However, there are no judgments of conviction in these underlying causes,
only hung-jury orders stating in each cause that the court declared a mistrial.1
With certain exceptions not implicated here, this Court has jurisdiction to consider
an appeal filed by a criminal defendant only after a final judgment of conviction. See Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. art. 44.02 (providing that criminal defendant may appeal conviction); State v. Sellers,
790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (noting that defendant’s general right to appeal
under Article 44.02 “has always been limited to appeal from a ‘final judgment’”); Workman v. State,
1
The record reflects that the notices of appeal were filed the day before the district court
signed the three hung-jury orders.
343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961) (holding that court’s judgment discharging
criminal defendant from liability was not appealable judgment). Absent any judgments of conviction,
we lack jurisdiction to consider Perez’s appeals. See Ballard v. State, Nos. 01-08-00947-CR,
01-08-00948-CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 7936, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 8, 2009,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing one appeal for want of jurisdiction
because underlying cause was dismissed and had no judgment of conviction against appellant).
Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.
P. 43.2(f).
__________________________________________
Jeff Rose, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: August 28, 2015
Do Not Publish
2