Christopher B. Wooten v. The State of TexasAppeal from County Court of Howard County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed July 3, 2014 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ Nos. 11-14-00134-CR & 11-14-00135-CR ___________ CHRISTOPHER B. WOOTEN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court Howard County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 34,808 & 35,423 MEMORANDUM OPINION In each case, Christopher B. Wooten has filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeals. The clerk of this court wrote Wooten on May 29, 2014, and informed him that it did not appear that the trial court had entered an appealable order in either case. We requested that Wooten respond on or before June 16, 2014, and show grounds to continue the appeals. Wooten has filed responses, but he has not shown grounds upon which the appeals may continue. When Wooten filed these appeals, he complained that his applications for writ of habeas corpus had been improperly forwarded to the district clerk for filing. The records on appeal show that Wooten s applications for writ of habeas corpus, in which he seeks relief from two 1986 convictions for misdemeanor driving while intoxicated, have now been filed in the county court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 11.05, 11.09 (West 2005), art. 11.072 (West Supp. 2013). The county court, however, has not yet acted upon Wooten s applications. An appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant from a final judgment of conviction or as otherwise authorized by law. Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). This court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the grant or denial of an application for writ of habeas corpus sought under Article 11.072 or Article 11.09. See CRIM. PROC. art. 11.072, § 8; TEX. R. APP. P. 31; Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d 480 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Because the time for the State to file a response and for the county court to act upon Wooten s applications had not expired at the time that Wooten filed these appeals and because the county court has not yet acted upon Wooten s applications, we dismiss the appeals. We have no jurisdiction to entertain these appeals until the county court issues an order granting or denying the relief sought in Wooten s applications. Flores v. State, 08-10-00063-CR, 2010 WL 1620959 (Tex. App. El Paso Apr. 22, 2010) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that trial court s refusal to rule on an appellant s application for writ of habeas corpus is not appealable); see also CRIM. PROC. art. 11.072, § 8; Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d at 396. 2 The appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM July 3, 2014 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 3
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.
