Armando Rodriguez v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00424-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
_________________________________ ___________________

ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE 92ND DISTRICT COURT
OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Cron and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron

This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On August 26, 2025, appellant

filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal an order denying a petition for exemption

from registering as a sex offender entered in trial court case number CR-0697-88-A. It is

our opinion that we do not have jurisdiction over this matter.
Upon review of the order appellant was attempting to appeal, on August 26, 2025,

the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appears we may not have jurisdiction over

the matter. Appellant was further notified that the appeal may be subject to dismissal if

the defect remained uncured after thirty days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1.

Generally, 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. Workman

v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d

160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). Exceptions to the general rule include:

(1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State,

942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to

reduce bond, TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals

from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex.

App. —Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.

Furthermore, the denial of a petition for exemption from registering as a sex

offender is not a final appealable order, and intermediary appellate courts do not

otherwise have jurisdiction over such appeals. See Ex Parte McGregor, 145 S.W.3d 824

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.); Dewalt v. State, 417 S.W. 3d 678 (Tex. App.—Austin

2013, pet. ref’d).

Without a statute providing the right to appeal an order denying a petition for

exemption from registering as a sex offender, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. After

having fully examined and considered the notice of appeal and order being appealed, the

2
Court is of the opinion that there is not a final or otherwise appealable order, and we lack

jurisdiction. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

JENNY CRON
Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
20th day of November, 2025.

3