Alfonso Atkinson v. State of Texas

No. 13-26-00179-CR · Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi–Edinburg · June 11, 2026 · No. No. 13-26-00179-CR

Summary

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed Alfonso Atkinson’s attempted restricted appeal for lack of jurisdiction because no appealable order or signed final judgment of conviction was identified. The court also dismissed his motion for appointment of counsel and noted that the opinion is not designated for publication.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi–Edinburg
Writing for the Court
L. Aron Peña Jr.; Justice Silva; Justice Peña; Justice Fonseca
Jurisdiction
Thirteenth Court of Appeals of Texas
Decision date
June 11, 2026
Docket number
No. 13-26-00179-CR
Procedural posture
Appellant filed a notice of restricted appeal seeking review of interlocutory rulings and the denial of a habeas application. The court dismissed the appeal and the motion for appointment of counsel for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Alfonso Atkinson v. The State of Texas
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

appellate jurisdictionfinal judgment ruleinterlocutory appealhabeas corpusappellate procedure

Practice areas

Texas criminal appellate procedurecriminal procedurehabeas corpus

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction over Atkinson's attempted restricted appeal when he did not identify a signed final judgment of conviction or another appealable order.
  2. Whether the court had jurisdiction to consider Atkinson's motion for appointment of counsel.

Holdings

  1. A Texas appellate court generally has jurisdiction over a criminal defendant's appeal only when there is a signed final judgment of conviction, subject to recognized exceptions; because Atkinson identified no appealable order, the court lacked jurisdiction.
  2. The court lacked jurisdiction to consider and therefore dismissed Atkinson's motion for appointment of counsel.

Key quotations

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. (2)
There are no appealable orders currently before the Court; therefore, we lack jurisdiction over the matters. (2)

Factual background

Atkinson attempted to appeal interlocutory rulings and the denial of a habeas application. The appellate record and documents before the court did not reveal a signed final judgment of conviction or another appealable order entered within thirty days before the notices of appeal. Because no appealable order was presented, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction.

Procedural history

On February 20, 2026, Atkinson filed a notice of restricted appeal. The appellate clerk notified him that there appeared to be no final, appealable order. Atkinson filed a response on April 21, 2026, but did not identify an appealable order or cure the jurisdictional defect. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…