COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-18-00033-CR
QUINCY DEMOND BLAKELY APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 5 OF DENTON COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. CR-2015-06355-E
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Quincy Demond Blakely, who is proceeding pro se, attempts to
appeal the trial court’s January 29, 2018 order denying his “Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject Matter and Personal Jurisdiction.”
On January 31, 2018, we notified Blakely of our concern that we lacked
jurisdiction over his appeal because the trial court’s order did not appear to be an
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
appealable interlocutory order. We informed Blakely that unless he or any party
desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing
the appeal by February 12, 2018, we would dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Blakely filed a response that did
not address the order at issue, so on March 26, 2018, we extended the time—to
April 5, 2018—for Blakely to respond to our jurisdiction letter. We received no
response.
Accordingly, because we do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory
orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law, we dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f); Ragston v.
State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: June 14, 2018
2