Ashford Smith v. The State of Texas Appeal from 209th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued July 30, 2020 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00933-CR NO. 01-19-00935-CR NO. 01-19-00936-CR NO. 01-19-00937-CR ——————————— ASHFORD BERNARD SMITH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 209th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case Nos. 1520594, 1520595, 1538806, 15976921 1 Appellate cause no. 01-19-00933-CR; trial court cause no. 1538806. Appellate cause no. 01-19-00935-CR; trial court cause no. 1597692. Appellate cause no. 0119-00936-CR; trial court cause no. 1520594. Appellate cause no. 01-19-00937-CR; trial court cause no. 1520595. MEMORANDUM OPINION During a pretrial hearing on October 23, 2019, appellant, Ashford Bernard Smith, made a verbal motion to dismiss his court-appointed counsel, which was denied by the trial court. Appellant has filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s “denial to dismiss [court-appointed] counsel” in these four causes. We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. This Court’s jurisdiction over criminal appeals is conferred by statute, and “a party may appeal only from judgments of conviction or interlocutory orders authorized as appealable.” See Estrada v. State, No. 01-18-00645-CR, 2018 WL 4190058, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 31, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02. “The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696– 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The statute authorizing trial courts to appoint counsel for indigent criminal defendants does not authorize interlocutory appeals of a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s request to dismiss his court-appointed counsel. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04; Miears v. State, No. 04-10-00451-CR, 2010 WL 3572324, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 15, 2010, pet ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“Nothing in the language of article 26.04, or any other article, of the 2 Code of Criminal Procedure provides an interlocutory right to appeal from a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss appointed counsel.”); Locke v. State, No. 0319-00839-CR, 2020 WL 699530, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 12, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal from trial court’s denial of motion to dismiss court-appointed counsel for want of jurisdiction); see also Estrada, 2018 WL 4190058, at *1–2 (same). Absent such authorization from the Texas Legislature, we lack jurisdiction over these interlocutory appeals. See Miears, 2010 WL 3572324, at *1 (“The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal appeal absent express statutory authority.”). Accordingly, we reinstate the appeals2 and dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Landau. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 2 After appellant failed to timely file his brief, on May 5, 2020, this Court abated these appeals and ordered the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether appellant wished to continue prosecution of his appeals. Because we lack jurisdiction over these appeals, we reinstate these cases on the Court’s active docket and dismiss them. 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.
