You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Craig MacK v. State

Citation: 549 S.W.3d 746Docket: 10-17-00383-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 5, 2017; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the appellate case of Craig Mack v. The State of Texas, the Tenth Court of Appeals considered Mack’s appeal against the trial court's denial of his motion for a free Reporter’s Record, which he sought to support a post-conviction habeas corpus application alleging actual innocence and civil rights violations. The court emphasized that the statutory framework in Texas confines the right to appeal in criminal cases to judgments of conviction or authorized interlocutory orders. Finding that Mack's appeal originated neither from a conviction judgment nor from an appealable interlocutory order, the court cited precedent to assert that such denials are non-appealable. Consequently, the court declared it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Furthermore, the court underscored that Mack could not pursue a direct appeal regarding the trial court's inaction on his other pending motions. The opinion, delivered on December 6, 2017, by Justice Scoggins, was endorsed by the panel comprising Chief Justice Gray and Justice Davis.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appealing Trial Court's Inaction

Application: The court stated that direct appeal is not an available remedy for contesting a trial court's inaction on pending motions.

Reasoning: Additionally, the court noted that Mack could not appeal the trial court's inaction on his other pending motions through direct appeal.

Jurisdiction over Appeals

Application: The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because it did not arise from an appealable judgment or order.

Reasoning: The court found that Mack's appeal did not stem from a judgment of conviction or an appealable interlocutory order, referencing previous case law that established such denials are not appealable.

Right to Appeal in Criminal Cases

Application: The court determined that the appellant's right to appeal is limited by legislative provisions, which allow appeals only from judgments of conviction or authorized interlocutory orders.

Reasoning: The court clarified that the right to appeal in criminal cases is granted by the Legislature, allowing appeals only from judgments of conviction or authorized interlocutory orders, as outlined in Texas law.