Mariki Earl v. The State of Texas Appeal from 400th District Court of Fort Bend County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued July 7, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00243-CR ——————————— MARIKI EARL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15-DCR-071766 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Mariki Earl, has been indicted for the felony offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Appellant attempted to file a pro se notice of appeal of the interlocutory order of commitment for restoration to competency, signed by the trial court on March 3, 2016, finding that appellant is presently not competent to stand trial. The appellee, the State of Texas, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. More than ten days has passed and, while he has filed several pro se motions in this Court seeking, among other things, the appointment of appellate counsel, appellant has not filed a response to the State’s motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a). We agree with the State, grant its motion and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, and dismiss appellant’s motions as moot. The right to appeal in criminal cases is conferred by the legislature, and a party may appeal only from judgments of conviction or orders authorized as appealable. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West Supp. 2015); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2); see also Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). “If after an informal inquiry the court determines that evidence exists to support a finding of incompetency, the court shall order an examination under Subchapter B to determine whether the defendant is incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.005(a) (West Supp. 2015); see also Queen v. State, 212 S.W.3d 619, 620 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.). “Articles 46B.005 and 46B.054 provide that if incompetence is not contested and is shown by the evidence, a trial is unnecessary and instead the trial court is to proceed as if a jury had found the defendant incompetent to stand trial.” Queen, 212 S.W.3d at 620 (citing Articles 46B.005(c) and 46B.054). However, “[n]either the state nor the defendant is entitled to make an interlocutory appeal relating to a determination or 2 ruling under Article 46B.005.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.011 (West Supp. 2015); see also Queen, 212 S.W.3d at 620–21. The clerk’s record, filed in this Court, confirms that the trial court’s March 3, 2016 order, finding that appellant is presently not competent to stand trial, was a determination or ruling under Article 46B.005. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.011; see also Queen, 212 S.W.3d at 620–21. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 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.
