TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-23-00403-CR
Garland Scroggins, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 331ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-DC-01-302305, THE HONORABLE CHANTAL ELDRIDGE, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In November 2001, a jury found Garland Scroggins guilty of aggravated assault
with the use of a deadly weapon, and Scroggins was sentenced to life imprisonment. See
Tex. Pen. Code § 22.02(a)(2). This Court affirmed that conviction. See Scroggins v. State,
No. 03-02-00053-CR, 2002 WL 31717944 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 5, 2002, pet. ref’d) (not
designated for publication). On December 7, 2022, Scroggins filed a pro se motion to set aside
the indictment and judgment due to “inaccurate information contained in its documented penal
code (22.02.2a) statute.” The trial court denied that motion on February 24, 2023. Scroggins
then moved for “objection/re-hearing from the denial of his motion,” which was also denied by
the trial court. Scroggins now files a notice of appeal from the trial court’s orders denying
those motions.
In order for an appellate court to have jurisdiction over an appeal, the appeal must
be authorized by law. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). For
criminal cases, an appeal is authorized only when a trial court “enters a judgment of guilt or
other appealable order.” Tex. R. App P 25.2(a)(2); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02.
Scroggins has failed to demonstrate any statute vesting this court with jurisdiction over an appeal
from such orders. See McIntosh v. State, 110 S.W.3d 51, 52 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order)
(explaining that defendant has right to appeal from rulings other than final judgment of
conviction “only when ‘expressly granted by law’” (quoting Benford v. State, 994 S.W.2d 404,
409 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.))). 1
Insofar as his motions could be construed as a post-conviction application for writ
of habeas corpus, Article 11.07 provides the exclusive remedy for post-conviction relief from a
felony conviction in which the applicant seeks relief from a judgment imposing a penalty other
than death. See Tex. Code Crim. App. art. 11.07. That article vests complete jurisdiction over
such relief with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and accordingly, we have no jurisdiction
over such matters. See, e.g., Ex parte Griffin, No. 03-23-00093-CR, 2023 WL 2617798, at *1
(Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 24, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re
Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 819, 822 n.4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.) (“Courts of appeals have no
jurisdiction over criminal-law matters pertaining to proceedings under article 11.07.”).
We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
__________________________________________
Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
1
Scroggins also makes passing reference in his filings to a nunc pro tunc motion filed in,
and denied by, the district court. However, “[a]n order denying a judgment nunc pro tunc does
not result in a new judgment, and no statute vests appellate courts with jurisdiction over an
appeal from an order denying a request for a judgment nunc pro tunc.” Bender v. State,
No. 03-23-00019-CR, 2023 WL 1927746, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 10, 2023, pet. ref’d)
(mem. op., not designated for publication).
2
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: October 31, 2023
Do Not Publish
3