IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13-00040-CR
No. 10-13-00041-CR
DARRYL DEWAYNE WILLIAMS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2012-0750-C1 and 2012-0835-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Darryl Dewayne Williams’s pro se notices of appeal in the underlying criminal
actions complaining of the trial court’s rulings on motions to withdraw as attorney of
record were filed on February 7, 2013. By letter dated February 15, 2013, the Clerk of
this Court notified Williams that these appeals were subject to dismissal because it
appeared the Court does not have jurisdiction of an appeal of a ruling on a motion to
withdraw by counsel. By the same letter, the Clerk warned Williams that, unless any
party filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeals within 21 days of the
date of the letter, the appeals would be dismissed. Williams has filed a response for
both appeals but it does not provide grounds for continuing the appeals.
We do not have jurisdiction of an interlocutory appeal of the grant or denial of a
motion to withdraw as attorney of record. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-697
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standard for determining jurisdiction is whether the appeal is
authorized by law); Everett v. State, 91 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App. —Waco 2002, no pet.)
(Court has jurisdiction over criminal appeals only when expressly granted by law). No
law authorizes the interlocutory appeal of a denial of these motions.
The appeals are dismissed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed March 7, 2013
Do not publish
[CR25]
Williams v. State Page 2