Richard Henderson v. The State Of Texas Appeal from 94th District Court of Nueces County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00241-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ RICHARD HENDERSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Richard Henderson filed a notice of appeal on April 6, 2016, from a criminal case currently pending against him in trial court cause number 15CR-1692-C in the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. We dismiss the appeal. A defendant's notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the trial court enters an appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Id. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id. Generally, a state appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. 1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). Exceptions to the general rule include: (1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. Our review of the documents before the Court and our contact with the trial court clerk indicates that appellant’s case is still pending in the trial court and the trial court has not entered an appealable order. We note that appellant has a separate pending appeal in cause number 13-16-00242-CR arising from trial court cause number 16-CR1376-C in the 94th District Court of Nueces County. Accordingly, on April 29, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected 2 within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice. The Court, having examined and fully considered this matter, is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions, if any, are DISMISSED as moot. PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 2nd day of June, 2016. 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.
