Gayneal Ray Baker v. State of Texas--Appeal from 161st District Court of Ector County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed January 11, 2013 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-12-00354-CV ________ GAYNEAL RAY BAKER, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 161st District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. B-20,933 MEMORANDUM OPINION Gayneal Ray Baker has filed a pro se notice of appeal from an order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust account. Upon reviewing the documents filed in this court, we wrote appellant and informed him that it did not appear that this court had jurisdiction to entertain his appeal. We requested that appellant respond and show grounds to continue this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Appellant has responded to our letter by filing a notice of jurisdiction, but appellant s response fails to show grounds to continue this appeal. Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001). A notice or order to withdraw funds is not a final, appealable order. See Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 316 n.1, 321 (Tex. 2009) ( withdrawal order is actually a notification from the court, not an order); Ramirez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. App. Waco 2010, no pet.). The documents on file in this court, including appellant s notice of jurisdiction, show that appellant has not filed and the trial court has not acted on any post-notification motion, such as a motion to strike the order to withdraw inmate funds. An order ruling on such a motion would be appealable. See Harrell, 286 S.W.3d 315. No appealable order has been entered in this case. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM January 11, 2013 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson, J. 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.
