Edward L. Martinez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 137th District Court of Lubbock County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-06-0480-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B JANUARY 10, 2007 ______________________________ EDWARD L. MARTINEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2004-405,843; HON. CECIL G. PURYEAR, PRESIDING ______________________________ Memorandum Opinion ______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Edward L. Martinez (appellant) appeals from the findings of fact and conclusions of law rendered by the trial court after conducting a hearing pursuant to this court s abatement order. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The trial court held a hearing on November 6, 2006, pursuant to this court s abatement order to determine whether appellant was represented on appeal and if not then whether he was entitled to appointed counsel. The trial court, after conducting the hearing, filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as directed with the trial court clerk on November 6, 2006. Appellant filed his notice of appeal from these findings on December 6, 2006. On December 14, 2006, this court directed appellant to file any documents or matters considered necessary for the Court to determine its appellate jurisdiction with this Court no later than January 8, 2007. To date appellant has failed to respond. The Court of Criminal Appeals, in Williams v. State, 780 S.W.2d 802, 803 (Tex. Crim. App.1989), held that "by entering an order merely abating an appeal a court of appeals does not 'decide a case,' therefore, it is an interlocutory order which is not final nor appealable. The trial court s findings are a result of the abatement hearing and address matters directed by this court. It, too, does not decide the case and therefore is interlocutory and non-appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss appellant s appeal from the trial court s findings issued from the November 6, 2006 abatement hearing. Per Curiam Do not publish. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
