Armando Ramos v. the State of Texas

NUMBERS 13-26-00136-CR; 13-26-00137-CR; 13-26-00138-CR;
13-26-00139-CR; 13-26-00140-CR; 13-26-00141-CR;
13-26-00142-CR; 13-26-00143-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________

ARMANDO RAMOS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE 103RD DISTRICT COURT
OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS
____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West

The cause is before the Court on its own motion and on appellant’s motion for

appointment of counsel. On January 26, 2026, appellant filed notices of appeal attempting

to appeal denials of a motion to set aside judgment and to issue findings of fact and

conclusions of law, entered in trial court case numbers 89-CR-00679-D, 89-CR-000680-

D, 89-CR-000681-D, AND 89-CR-000682. On February 6, 2026, the Clerk of the Court
notified appellant that there appears to be no final, appealable orders in these matters.

On March 9, 2026, the Court received appellant’s response which does not cure the

defects in any of the cases.

A state appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal

defendant where there has been a signed final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State,

343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 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 does not reveal any appealable

orders entered by the trial court within thirty days before the filing of appellant's notices of

appeal. The Court, having examined and fully considered the record before the Court, is

of the opinion that there are not any appealable orders, and this Court lacks jurisdiction

over the matters herein. Accordingly, these appeals are hereby dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction, and appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel is also dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction.

JON WEST
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
26th day of March, 2026.

2