NUMBER 13-19-00339-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
KEVIN PAUL CARTER, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 377th District Court
of Victoria County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
Appellant Kevin Paul Carter, proceeding pro se, filed a “notice of appeal”
“concerning the denial of a motion for discovery” from cause number 16-12-29777-D in
the 377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas. On July 8, 2019, the Clerk of this
Court notified appellant that it appeared that there was not a final, appealable judgment
in this case and requested correction of this defect if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 37.1. The Clerk notified appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect
was not cured. In response, appellant filed a motion to abate the appeal. Appellant
contends that his “sole issue or purpose [was] for the court to provide him. . . a request
for post-conviction discovery [not] a notice of appeal.”
In Texas, appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they are specifically
authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011);
see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. 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, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961);
Ex parte Ragston, 402 S.W.3d 472, 477 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013), aff'd sub
nom. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); McKown v. State, 915
S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). The courts of appeals do not
have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal appeal absent express
statutory authority. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);
Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 907 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, 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. See
also Bridle, 16 S.W.3d at 908 n.1.
2
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 here. Because there is no appealable order, we
DENY the motion to abate and we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All
pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED.
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice
Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
25th day of July, 2019.
3