Marcus Dewayne Matlock v. The State of Texas Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-19-00039-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS MARCUS DEWAYNE MATLOCK, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Marcus Dewayne Matlock, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal to challenge the denial of his motions to disqualify and recuse the trial court judge. On February 4, 2019, this Court notified Appellant that the information received failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, i.e., there is no final judgment or appealable order contained therewith. The notice further advised Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before March 6, 2019, to show this Court’s jurisdiction. This deadline passed without a response to the February 4 notice. “[I]n Texas, appeals by either the State or the defendant in a criminal case are permitted only when they are specifically authorized by statute.” State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Appellate courts likewise have no jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A); see De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Rule 18a applies to criminal cases). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to review an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to recuse. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A); see also Hranicky v. State, No. 01-11-00557- CR, 2013 WL 1804495, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 30, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction appeal from denial of pretrial motion to recuse). For this reason, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). Opinion delivered March 12, 2019. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT MARCH 12, 2019 NO. 12-19-00039-CR MARCUS DEWAYNE MATLOCK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0530-18) THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it 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.
