Theron Belton v. Congara Poultry Co., and TDCJID

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-03-00291-CV Theron Belton, Appellant v. Congara Poultry Co. and TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Appellees From the 278th District Court Madison County, Texas Trial Court # 01-9649-278-10 MEMORANDUM Opinion Prison inmate Theron Belton filed a personal injury suit against Conagra Poultry Co. and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Belton filed a motion for court-appointed counsel, which the court denied. Belton seeks review of this ruling by interlocutory appeal. Because this Court does not have jurisdiction, we will dismiss the appeal. This Court has jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal only when expressly provided by statute. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.3d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998); Chase Manhattan Bank v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 871, 878 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.). No statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for appointed counsel. Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal was not filed within 10 days. Belton has responded by filing a motion to stay this appeal so the trial court can enter an order for interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(d) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. To pursue such an appeal however, a party must (1) obtain a written order from the trial court and (2) apply to this Court for permission to take the appeal, both within ten days after the entry of the order sought to be appealed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(d), (f) (Vernon Supp. 2004–2005); In re D.B., 80 S.W.3d 698, 700-02 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.). Here, Belton has not yet obtained a written order for interlocutory appeal from the trial court. His request to this Court for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal was submitted nearly seventeen months after the entry of the order he seeks to appeal. Thus, he cannot comply with the 10-day requirements of section 51.014. See D.B., 80 S.W.3d at 701-02. Accordingly, Belton’s motion to stay the appeal is denied, and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Vance, and Justice Reyna Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed December 29, 2004 [CV06]