Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00355-CR ___________________________ EX PARTE MIKE FREDERICK BWONDARA On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 9 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. HBB0025 Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Mike Frederick Bwondara, who is proceeding pro se on appeal, attempts to appeal the September 17, 2026 “Order Denying Applicant’s Supplemental and Amended Motion to Recuse or Disqualify the Honorable Brian Bolton, Request for Evidentiary Hearing, Written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Status/Stay Clarification and Ancillary Relief.” By letter dated September 25, 2026, we notified Appellant of our concern regarding a lack of jurisdiction over this appeal. We explained that in criminal cases, this court’s jurisdiction is generally limited to appeals from judgments of conviction or orders made appealable by statute, see Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 697 & n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam), and that the order Appellant attempts to appeal does not fit within those parameters. We stated that unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with this court on or before Monday, October 5, 2026, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3. Appellant filed a response acknowledging that the September 17, 2026 order is not presently appealable and indicated that the underlying proceeding involves an 2 Article 11.072 application for writ of habeas corpus.1 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072. Because there does not appear to be a final judgment or appealable order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to its refiling. See id. art. 11.072, § 8; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: October 8, 2026 The trial court has confirmed that the underlying case is a habeas proceeding 1 and that no final judgment has been signed. 3