Deylan Christopher Walker v. The State of Texas Appeal from 439th Judicial District Court of Rockwall County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismiss and Opinion Filed March 21, 2022 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00165-CR DEYLAN CHRISTOPHER WALKER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2-18-0986 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Molberg, and Pedersen, III Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III Deylan Christopher Walker filed his pro se notice of appeal on March 1, 2022, seeking to appeal the “judgment signed by the Court on February 10, 2022.” Concluding we do not have jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. This Court may only review criminal appeals authorized by statute. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (authorizing defendant’s right to appeal “under the rules hereinafter prescribed”). Generally, criminal defendants may appeal only from final judgments. See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Unless a statute expressly grants a right of appeal, interlocutory orders are not appealable. See Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52; Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In this case, appellant seeks to appeal the trial court’s ruling on appellant’s February 10, 2022 “First Amended Emergency Motion to Oppose Motion to Withdraw & Sanctions Against Attorney Robert Gregg & Request for Hearing on Motion to Withdraw.” The trial court’s February 10, 2022 order denying appellant’s motion is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order. See Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.) (listing appealable interlocutory orders and concluding determination to revoke bond not appealable); Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 908 n.1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). Thus, we have no jurisdiction to consider appellant’s appeal. See Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52; Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d at 794. And in the absence of jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal without taking further action. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 220165f.u05 Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) /Bill Pedersen, III// BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE –2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT DEYLAN CHRISTOPHER WALKER, Appellant No. 05-22-00165-CR On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court, Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2-18-0986. Opinion delivered by Justice Pedersen, III. Justices Schenck and Molberg participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment entered this 21st day of March, 2022. –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.
