Modesto Celestino Granger 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. 04-18-00816-CR Modesto Celestino GRANGER, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CR9790 Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 5, 2018 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION On September 11, 2017, in trial court cause number 2017-CR-9790, Appellant was indicted on two counts: count one was for possession with intent to deliver, and count two was for possession of, a controlled substance, namely heroin, in an amount of 400 grams or more. On October 2, 2018, in trial court cause number 2017-CR-2940, Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to confinement for thirty-five years. Citing Appellant’s conviction and sentence in trial court cause number 2017-CR-2940, the State moved to dismiss cause number 2017-CR-9790. The trial court granted the State’s motion. 04-18-00816-CR Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal for trial court cause number 2017-CR-9790, which is this appeal, numbered 04-18-00816-CR. Appellant appears to be appealing the trial court’s order dismissing trial court cause number 2017-CR-9790. “With certain exceptions not implicated here, this court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal filed by a criminal defendant only after a final judgment of conviction.” Zamarripa v. State, No. 04-16-00274-CR, 2016 WL 3085932, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 1, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02); accord McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (“Generally, we only have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a judgment of conviction.”). We ordered Appellant to cause a trial court certification to be filed in this court showing that Appellant has the right of appeal. A supplemental clerk’s record was filed containing the trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal. The certificate states that the “motion to dismiss [was] granted [and] there is nothing to appeal.” The record shows there is no final judgment of conviction to review; this court’s jurisdiction has not been invoked. See Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -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.
