Opinion filed January 11, 2013
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-12-00354-CV
________
GAYNEAL RAY BAKER, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 161st District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. B-20,933
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Gayneal Ray Baker has filed a pro se notice of appeal from an order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust account. Upon reviewing the documents filed in this court, we wrote appellant and informed him that it did not appear that this court had jurisdiction to entertain his appeal. We requested that appellant respond and show grounds to continue this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. Appellant has responded to our letter by filing a notice of jurisdiction, but appellant’s response fails to show grounds to continue this appeal.
Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001). A notice or order to withdraw funds is not a final, appealable order. See Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 316 n.1, 321 (Tex. 2009) (“withdrawal order” is actually a notification from the court, not an order); Ramirez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, no pet.). The documents on file in this court, including appellant’s notice of jurisdiction, show that appellant has not filed and the trial court has not acted on any post-notification motion, such as a motion to strike the order to withdraw inmate funds. An order ruling on such a motion would be appealable. See Harrell, 286 S.W.3d 315. No appealable order has been entered in this case.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
January 11, 2013
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Willson, J.