Beatrice Curiel v. The State of Texas Appeal from 214th District Court of Nueces County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-21-00400-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ BEATRICE CURIEL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears there is no final appealable order. On November 16, 2021, appellant attempted to appeal cause number CR13000129-F. On January 7, 2022, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that there appears to be no final, appealable order. Appellant was further notified that if the defect is not corrected within thirty days from the date of the letter, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On February 9, 2022, after the trial court appointed new counsel for the appellant, the Clerk of the Court again notified appellant that there is no final, appealable order and was further notified that if the defect is not corrected within thirty days from the date of the letter, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant has not filed a response nor attempted to cure the defect. Generally, a state 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, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). Exceptions to the general rule 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.–Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. Our review of the documents before the Court does not reveal an appealable order entered by the trial court within thirty days before the filing of appellant’s notice of appeal. The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal, is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order, and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed on the 5th day of May, 2022. 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.
