Rodney Keith Hazlip, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
Rodney Keith Hazlip filed a notice of appeal regarding the trial court's order of October 9, 2014, which denied a motion that Hazlip filed in his criminal case after his conviction was affirmed on appeal. See Hazlip v. State, No. 09–11–00086–CR, 2012 WL 4466352, at *1 (Tex.App.—Beaumont Sept. 26, 2012, pet. ref'd) (mem.op.) (not designated for publication), cert. denied by Hazlip v. Texas, 134 S.Ct. 2704 (2014). On November 13, 2014, we notified the parties that our jurisdiction was not apparent from the notice of appeal, and that we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless we received a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Hazlip filed a response, but failed to demonstrate jurisdiction in that response.
“Jurisdiction must be expressly given to the courts of appeals in a statute.” Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex.Crim.App.2014). The general right of appeal in a criminal case is limited to appeal from a judgment of conviction. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 695–97 (Tex.Crim.App.2008); see also Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (West 2006). Hazlip's motion sought the release of juror card information. A trial court may disclose juror information in certain circumstances, but the statute that authorizes the trial court's action does not expressly authorize an appeal of an adverse ruling on a request that is made in a closed case. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 35.29 (West Supp.2014). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice