Rodney Wayne Smith v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 228th District Court of Harris County

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 6, 2008.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00585-CR

____________

RODNEY WAYNE SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 335645

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal of the trial court=s order, signed June 9, 2008, denying appellant=s Amended Petition for Discovery Order.

Generally, an 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.CFort Worth 1996, no pet.). The exceptions 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.CDallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.

The denial of a post-conviction petition for discovery[1] is not a separately appealable order. Because this appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 6, 2008.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Boyce.

Do Not Publish CTex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

[1] This petition seeks discovery from the Harris County District Attorney, Harris County District Clerk, Clerk of the First Court of Appeals, and the Clerk of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.