Arturo Argot v. The State of Texas Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00226-CR Arturo ARGOT, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR1177 Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 28, 2017 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant filed a notice of appeal on April 11, 2017. In his notice of appeal, he states he is appealing from the trial court’s judgment of conviction signed March 30, 2017. However, the record does not include a copy of the judgment of conviction or any judgment signed on March 30, 2017. We generally have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in a criminal case only when there has been a judgment of conviction. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). 04-17-00226-CR Based on the foregoing, we ordered appellant to file in this court, on or before June 12, 2017, a response showing why we should not dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We also advised appellant that if no satisfactory response was filed within the time provided, we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. In that same order, we also noted the trial court signed a certificate stating this “is a pleabargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “is one in which the defendant waived the right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). We therefore advised appellant that this court may be required to dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Because appellant has not filed a response showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction and it does not appear there is a final judgment in this matter, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1 PER CURIAM Do Not Publish 1 We could also dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 25.2(d), but given we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss on this basis. -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.
