Cyrus Lua Gray III v. The State of Texas Appeal from 22nd District Court of Hays County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-21-00081-CR CYRUS LUA GRAY III, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 22nd District Court Hays County, Texas Trial Court No. CR-18-0567-A, Honorable R. Bruce Boyer, Presiding July 7, 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, Cyrus Lua Gray III, filed a notice of appeal, pro se, from the trial court’s purported denial of his “motion for exculpatory evidence.”1 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). In 2018, appellant was indicted for capital murder.2 He was appointed trial counsel, but his counsel was later allowed to withdraw. Proceeding pro se, appellant filed a “Motion for Exculpatory and Mitigating Evidence (Brady Material)” on October 19, 2020. The clerk’s record does not contain a trial court order ruling on appellant’s motion or a judgment of conviction. We have jurisdiction to consider a criminal appeal from a judgment of conviction or where expressly granted by law. McIntosh v. State, 110 S.W.3d 51, 52 (Tex. App.— Waco 2002, order) (per curiam). Here, the record does not contain the purported trial court order denying appellant’s motion for exculpatory evidence. Even if the trial court had signed such an order, we have found no authority granting immediate appellate review. See Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (holding that appellate courts have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders, such as pretrial rulings, only where that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law). By letter of May 19, 2021, we directed appellant to file a response showing how we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant filed a response but has not demonstrated grounds for continuing the appeal. Because appellant has not presented this Court with a judgment of conviction or appealable order for review, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and deny appellant’s request for appointed appellate counsel. Per Curiam Do not publish. 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a)(2) (West 2019). 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.
