Crae Robert Pease v. The State of Texas Appeal from County Court at Law No. 9 of Travis County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-16-00534-CR Crae Robert Pease, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 9 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1-CR-15-153365, HONORABLE KIM WILLIAMS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Crae Robert Pease, appearing pro se, filed an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of his right to defend himself in a criminal hearing. In criminal cases, unless expressly authorized by statute, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments of conviction. Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether appeal is precluded by law but whether appeal is authorized by law). In criminal cases, an appeal is authorized only when a trial court “enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02 (“A defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed . . . .”). “[A] defendant’s right of appeal is a statutorily created right.” See Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). No statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal of a defendant’s request for self-representation. Cf. Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578, 583-84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (addressing denial of right to self-representation in appeal from final judgment and applying standards set out in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975)); Ex parte Ahmad, No. 14-16-00175-CR, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2016 WL 3362633, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 16, 2016) (per curiam) (holding courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to consider appeal of trial court’s denial of pretrial habeas corpus because claim for self-representation was not cognizable on pretrial habeas). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). __________________________________________ Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: September 14, 2016 Do Not Publish 2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.
