Stacy Smith v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 13th District
Date FiledJune 18, 2026
Docket13-26-00390-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NUMBERS 13-26-00389-CR, 13-26-00390-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
STACY SMITH, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT
OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron
Appellant Stacy Smith filed a pro se notice of appeal from trial court cause numbers
26FC-0590C and 26FC-0591C in the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas,
docketed respectively in our appellate cause numbers 13-26-00389-CR and 13-26-
00390-CR. We address both cases in one memorandum opinion in the interests of judicial
economy and efficiency. We dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
I. APPELLATE CAUSE NUMBER 13-26-00389-CR
In our appellate cause number 13-26-00389-CR, the trial court certified that
“Defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if the trial court’s
certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. See id. R. 25.2(d);
Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Vasquez v. State, 695
S.W.3d 556, 559 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, pet. ref’d); Torres v. State, 493
S.W.3d 213, 215 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, no pet.); Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d
522, 525–26 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2010, no pet.). The purpose of the
certification requirement is to efficiently sort appealable cases from non-appealable cases
so that appealable cases can “move through the system unhindered while eliminating, at
an early stage, the time and expense associated with non-appealable cases.” Greenwell
v. Ct. of Apps. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
On May 18, 2026, the Court ordered appellant’s counsel to review the record and
determine whether appellant had a right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1,
44.3, 44.4. On June 1, 2026, appellant’s court-appointed counsel advised the Court that:
“Based on counsel’s review of the entire record and review of applicable law, [counsel] is
of the opinion that [appellant] does not have a right to appeal because [appellant] has
waived his right to appeal.”
2
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the
applicable law, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we
dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id. R. 25.2(d); Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 613;
Vasquez, 695 S.W.3d at 559; Torres, 493 S.W.3d at 215; Pena, 323 S.W.3d at 525–26.
II. APPELLATE CAUSE NUMBER 13-26-00390-CR
On May 18, 2026, in our appellate cause number 13-26-00390-CR, the Clerk of
the Court notified appellant’s counsel that it appeared that there was no final, appealable
judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2, 37.1, 42.3(a). The Clerk notified appellant that the
appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within thirty days from receipt
of the notice. In response, appellant’s counsel advised the Court that trial court cause
number 26FC-0591C was “no[t] charged because it was consolidated with cause number
26FC-0590C.” Appellant’s counsel thus informed the Court that “there is nothing to appeal
in this case,” and “the appeal should be dismissed.”
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the
applicable law, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02 (addressing a defendant’s right to appeal in a criminal case); TEX.
R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2) (stating that a criminal defendant “has the right of appeal under
[Texas] Code of Criminal Procedure article 44.02 and these rules”); see also Abbott v.
State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Wilson v. State, 644 S.W.3d 761,
3
762 (Tex. App.—Austin 2022, no pet.). Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
III. CONCLUSION
We dismiss each of these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
JENNY CRON
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed on the
18th day of June, 2026.
4