NUMBER 13-18-00212-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
EFRAIN LOPEZ GARZA, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras
Appellant Efrain Lopez Garza, proceeding pro se, filed a “motion to vacate
sentence and to resentence after allocution” on April 16, 2018. Appellant sought to
appeal a ruling issued on October 19, 2017 which dismissed trial court cause number
CR-17-11635-E “in the interest of justice.”
On May 3, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the
order from which the appeal was taken was not a final, appealable order and requested
correction of this defect within ten days. The Clerk advised appellant that the appeal
would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected. Appellant has failed to respond to
the Court’s directive.
Generally, a state 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.). Exceptions to the general rule 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.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal and the
matters before the Court, is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this
Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein. Because there is no appealable order,
we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions, if any, are likewise
DISMISSED.
DORI CONTRERAS
Justice
Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
21st day of June, 2018.
2