James Henry Aduddle v. State

Opinion issued October 7, 2004 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________ NOS. 01-04-00848-CR 01-04-00849-CR 01-04-00850-CR ____________ JAMES HENRY ADUDDLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 36,729, 36,730, and 36,731 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, James Henry Aduddle, filed a pro se motion in the trial court for leave to file post-conviction petitions for writ of habeas corpus in excess of the page limit in the above-referenced cause numbers. The trial court denied the motion on July 22, 2004. On July 30, 2004, appellant filed pro se notices of appeal. We hold that we are without jurisdiction over these appeals. Former presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, John F. Onion, Jr., sitting by assignment, stated the rule well in Ex parte Shumake, 953 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.), as follows: Generally, we have jurisdiction in criminal cases only where there has been a judgment of conviction. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (citing Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961)). A court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by statute. See Ex parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Emerson v. Borland, 838 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ). Id., at 844 (Onion, J.) (Retired). We know of no statute granting this Court jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a request to exceed the page limit in a writ petition. Therefore, we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Bland. Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).