Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 20, 2004.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-04-00296-CR
NO. 14-04-00297-CR
____________
CHARLES LEE GRABLE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 232nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 764,539
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant=s appeal from his conviction was dismissed on May 16, 2003, in cause number 14-02-335-CR, because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. On September 25, 2003, this Court dismissed an appeal from the trial court=s refusal to rule on appellant=s APetition for Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment,@ holding that the appeal did not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction. Appellant filed three more appeals from the same trial court cause, two of which challenged the trial court=s refusal to rule on appellant=s APetition for Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment,@ and one that challenged the trial court=s denial of appellant=s motion to recuse. These appeals were dismissed for want of jurisdiction on January 29, 2004. Now, appellant has filed two more appeals, one from the denial of a motion to recuse and one from the denial of a petition for a court of inquiry.
Generally, an 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.). The exceptions 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.
Because appellant=s appeals do not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction. On April 22, 2004, this court advised appellant of our intent to dismiss these appeals. Appellant filed no response.
Accordingly, the appeals are ordered dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed May 20, 2004.
Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Seymore.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).