Ex parte Mark Aaron Thomas Appeal from 297th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-16-00448-CR EX PARTE MARK AARON THOMAS ---------FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. C-297-010626-1076371-A ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Mark Aaron Thomas attempts to appeal from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus. On November 28, 2016, we notified Thomas of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because this court has no jurisdiction to review decisions of the 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. court of criminal appeals,2 and we informed him that this appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed a response with this court by December 8, 2016, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Thomas filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Ex parte Rogers, Nos. 02-11-00333-CR, 02-11-00334-CR, 02-11-00335-CR, 2011 WL 4414708, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 22, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeals for want of jurisdiction because appellant attempted to appeal from the court of criminal appeals’s denial of his applications for writ of habeas corpus). /s/ Lee Gabriel LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: December 22, 2016 2 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(a) (West 2015) (providing that “[a]fter final conviction in any felony case, the writ must be made returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas at Austin, Texas”); accord Tex. Const. art. V, § 5 (providing that court of criminal appeals has final appellate jurisdiction on all questions of law in criminal matters). 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.