Shelton Ray Davison v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-25-00642-CR

Shelton Ray DAVISON,
Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,
Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2025-CR-006485
Honorable Liza Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
H. Todd McCray, Justice
Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 10, 2025

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The clerk’s record reflects that on May 29, 2025, appellant was indicted in district court

with theft of property less than $2,500, which was enhanced with previous convictions. On

September 11, 2025, appellant’s trial counsel filed a “Motion Suggesting Incompetency and

Request for Examination,” which (1) suggested appellant was incompetent, (2) requested

disinterested experts be appointed as provided by article 46B of the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure to examine appellant with regard to his competency to stand trial, and (3) in the event
04-25-00642-CR

the trial court determined there was evidence to support a finding of incompetency, hold an

incompetency trial pursuant to article 46B. On September 12, 2025, the trial court signed an order

referring the matter to the criminal law magistrate court for the scheduling of a competency

evaluation and further proceedings. On October 7, 2025, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

The trial court’s order referring the issue of appellant’s competency to the criminal law

magistrate is not an appealable interlocutory order. We generally do not have jurisdiction to

consider an appeal in a criminal case unless a judgment of conviction has been rendered. See

McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). We do not have

jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by

law. See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Here, there is no judgment

of conviction contained within the clerk’s record.

Further, we note that even if the clerk’s record demonstrated the magistrate judge had ruled

on appellant’s competency, there is no statutory provision allowing an interlocutory appeal from

a judgment committing a person to a mental health facility. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

46B.011 (“Neither the state nor the defendant is entitled to make an interlocutory appeal relating

to a determination or ruling under Article 46B.005.”); Queen v. State, 212 S.W.3d 619, 622-23

(Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.) (holding that an order committing a defendant for competency

restoration is an interlocutory order and dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction).

We therefore ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-