Quincy Wellington Jackson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 188th District Court of Gregg County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-09-00241-CR ______________________________ QUINCY WELLINGTON JACKSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 188th Judicial District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 37052-A Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Quincy Wellington Jackson filed a notice of appeal December 16, 2009, on errors raised by written motion and ruled on before trial and on errors arising during and subsequent to trial. After a thorough review of the clerk s record, we found no appealable order in the record.1 A timely notice of appeal from a conviction or an appealable order is necessary to invoke this Court s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). This Court has jurisdiction over criminal appeals only when expressly granted by law. Everett v. State, 91 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App. Waco 2002, no pet.). After our receipt of the clerk s record March 29, we notified counsel by letter March 30 of the possible jurisdictional defect and requested that counsel, within ten days of the date of the letter, show this Court how it had jurisdiction. Counsel filed a motion requesting that this appeal be abated to the trial court for entry of an order correcting the record to show that hearings [in a companion case] were also hearings in the other case. 1 We note that the same competency hearing was involved both in this case and the companion, but while the other case proceeded to judgment, there is nothing to reflect that this prosecution did likewise. 2 That motion is overruled. There being no appealable order in the record, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: April 15, 2010 April 16, 2010 Do Not Publish 3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.
