Molly Boots v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-19-00315-CR No. 02-19-00316-CR ___________________________ MOLLY BOOTS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 1557065D, 1508523D Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Molly Boots, who has appointed counsel but filed a pro se notice of appeal, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s “Order For Competency Examination.” We informed Boots by letter that it appeared that she was not attempting to appeal from a final judgment or from an otherwise appealable order and notified her that we would dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction unless she showed grounds for continuing them. Boots has not responded. In a criminal case, we generally have jurisdiction only when the trial court has signed a judgment of conviction. McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). “We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted to us by law.” Id. The order about which Boots complains is not a final judgment of conviction or an appealable interlocutory order. See, e.g., Morales v. State, 830 S.W.2d 139, 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Therefore, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: October 17, 2019 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.
