RODERICK DEMETRIUS CREAG SR APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tyler.

RODERICK DEMETRIUS CREAG, SR., APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

NO. 12-17-00270-CR, NO. 12-17-00271-CR, NO. 12-17-00272-CR

Decided: September 29, 2017

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roderick Demetrius Creag, Sr., acting pro se, attempts to appeal from the denial of his motion to correct a bill of costs. In 2013, Appellant was convicted of murder, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life, twenty years, and life respectively. This Court affirmed Appellant's convictions. See Creag v. State, Nos. 12-13-00278-CR, 12-13-00279-CR, 12-13-00280-CR, 2014 WL 2921893 (Tex. App.—Tyler, June 30, 2014, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

According to Appellant, the trial court denied his motion to correct the bill of costs on August 11, 2017. On September 5, he filed a notice of appeal. Also on September 5, this Court notified Appellant that his notice of appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of this Court, to-wit: there is no final judgment or appealable order contained therein. We informed Appellant that the appeals would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before October 5 to show the jurisdiction of the Court. In response, Appellant stated he was having difficulty obtaining a copy of the order denying his motion.

An appellate court has jurisdiction over a criminal appeal only from a final judgment of conviction or where expressly granted by law. McIntosh v. State, 110 S.W.3d 51, 52 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.). The standard for determining jurisdiction is whether the appeal is authorized by law. Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In this case, we have not located any rule or statutory or constitutional provision that would authorize Appellant's appeal from the trial court's post-judgment order denying his motion to correct the bill of costs. See id. at 697; see also Reece v. State, No. 06-16-00050-CR, 2016 WL 9175799, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 27, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because order denying motion for removal of a court cost was not an appealable order and Reece failed to timely assert his complaint concerning the assessment of costs in the 2010 judgment of conviction). Accordingly, because we do not have authority to consider Appellant's appeal from his post-conviction motion to correct the bill of costs, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f).

JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this 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.