Jorge Cordero-Varela v. The State of Texas Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOS. 12-15-00213-CR 12-15-00214-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS JORGE CORDERO-VARELA, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Appellant, Jorge Cordero-Varela, attempts to appeal from an order “dismissing” his motion for discovery. As a general rule, an appeal in a criminal case may be taken only from a judgment of conviction. See Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961). However, there are certain narrow exceptions. See Demar v. State, No. 14-08-00982-CR, 2008 WL 4809479, at *1 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 6, 2008, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (listing exceptions). The order Appellant complains of is not a judgment of conviction nor does it fall within any exception to the general rule. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over the appeals. On September 2, 2015, we sent Appellant a letter informing him that the order being appealed is not an appealable order. We further notified Appellant that the appeals would be dismissed unless, on or before October 2, 2015, the information in the appeals was amended to show the jurisdiction of this court. In response, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal stating that he seeks to appeal “the trial court’s judgment of said conviction.” However, Appellant did not provide further information about the judgment of conviction. And we cannot conclude from the information provided in these appeals that a final judgment of conviction has recently been rendered against Appellant. Because Appellant has not shown the jurisdiction of this court, the appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Opinion delivered September 30, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 NO. 12-15-00213-CR JORGE CORDERO-VARELA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0766-12) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J. COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 NO. 12-15-00214-CR JORGE CORDERO-VARELA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0767-12) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
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.
