IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
JUNE 30, 2005
______________________________
ROY BOSWELL, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 114TH DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY;
NO. 241-1410-00; HONORABLE CYNTHIA STEVENS KENT, JUDGE _______________________________
Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ., and BOYD, S.J. (1)
MEMORANDUM OPINIONAppellant Roy Lee Boswell appeals from an order revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to eight years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division and a fine. The certification of appeal executed by the trial court does not disclose that he has a right to appeal from the order; rather it states that he waived same. By letter dated June 9, 2005, this court notified appellant of this circumstance and that the appeal was subject to dismissal. The court also requested that he supply us with an amended certification illustrating that he has a right to appeal from the order or inform us why we should continue the appeal. This was to be done by June 24, 2005. That deadline lapsed and we received neither a response nor amended certification. Thus, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d) (requiring that the appeal be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has a right to appeal has not been made part of the record).
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
iction do so by petitioning the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (Vernon 2005). Different procedures cannot be created by the individual seeking relief. Nor can the rules applicable to appealing civil matters be invoked as a means of attacking a criminal conviction.
So, because appellant attempted to attack a final felony conviction and did so through filing a "petition" with the local district court rather than the Court of Criminal Appeals, the district court had no jurisdiction over the matter. Nor does this court have jurisdiction to entertain appellant's effort to avoid his final felony conviction. Runnels v. State, 804 S.W.2d 278 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1991, no pet.). In short, the Texas Legislature created the relevant procedure, and it must be followed.
Accordingly, we grant the State's motion to dismiss and affirm the trial court's judgment wherein it found it lacked jurisdiction.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.