NO. 07-11-00072-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
APRIL 14, 2011
JEREMY JAY BROCK, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 222ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY;
NO. CR-2006D-049; HONORABLE ROLAND D. SAUL, JUDGE
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jeremy Jay Brock attempts to appeal the trial court’s denial of his
request for appointment of counsel in a proceeding for post-conviction DNA testing
under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.1 Finding we lack appellate
jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.
The record in this case has not been filed but the clerk of the trial court submitted
a copy of appellant’s notice of appeal and the trial court’s order denying appellant’s
request for appointment of counsel. We notified appellant by letter of a possible
1
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01-64.05 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010).
jurisdictional defect and afforded him more than ten days to supply documents or
matters he deemed necessary for determination of our jurisdiction. Appellant did not
respond to our notice letter. We have considered our jurisdiction.
According to appellant’s notice of appeal he seeks our review of the trial court’s
order denying his “request for appointment of counsel pursuant to article 64, Code of
Criminal Procedure, heretofore rendered against him . . . [on] January 21, 2011.” On
January 21, the trial court signed an order reciting that it had considered appellant’s
request for appointment of counsel in a Chapter 64 proceeding along with appellant’s
declaration of inability to pay costs. The court found no reasonable grounds for a
motion under Chapter 64,2 and denied appellant’s request for appointment of counsel.
“The right to appeal is conferred by the legislature, and generally a party may
appeal only that which the legislature has authorized.” Vargas v. State, 109 S.W.3d 26,
29 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2003, no pet). Thus unless jurisdiction is expressly granted by
law, an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review orders made during the
course of a case before entry of a final order. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d. 792, 794
(Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that an order
denying appointed counsel under article 64.01(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
not an immediately appealable order. Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 319
(Tex.Crim.App. 2010). Rather, the order is appealable “if and when” the motion for
forensic DNA testing is denied. Id. at 323.
2
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01(c) (West Supp. 2010) (appointment of
counsel requires court find reasonable grounds for filing motion under Chapter 64).
2
Because appellant seeks review of an interlocutory order over which appellate
courts have not been given jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
3