Dennis Michael Wolfenbarger v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00211-CR

DENNIS MICHAEL WOLFENBARGER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court
Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 16F1160-005

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 31, 2018, Dennis Michael Wolfenbarger was convicted of aggravated sexual

assault of a child, and this Court affirmed that conviction on direct appeal in 2019. See

Wolfenbarger v. State, 581 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, no pet.). On October 10,

2024, Wolfenbarger filed a motion in the trial court styled “Motion for Appointment of Counsel

under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 64.01(c).” The trial court entered an order on October 16, 2024,

denying that motion. Wolfenbarger has attempted to appeal directly from the trial court’s

October 16 order.

In Texas, a party may only appeal when the Texas Legislature has authorized an appeal.

Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). When the legislature passes

legislation granting a right of appeal, in addition to granting its citizens that substantive right, it

also grants the appellate courts of this State jurisdiction to hear such appeals. In the absence of

such authorizing legislation, appellate courts are without jurisdiction and have no authority to

act. In the criminal context, the Texas Legislature has authorized appeals from written

judgments of conviction and a few orders deemed appealable. See Gutierrez v. State, 307

S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). With respect to the trial court’s October 16 order, the

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has stated clearly that an order denying the appointment of

counsel under Article 64.01(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure “is not an immediately

appealable order.” Id. at 323; see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(c).

On December 4, 2024, we sent Wolfenbarger a letter asking him to demonstrate how we

had jurisdiction over this appeal. We warned him that, if he did not file a response on or before

2
December 27, 2024, we would have no choice but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Wolfenbarger did not file a response.

Because there is no indication in the record presently before this Court that the trial court

entered an appealable order, we are without jurisdiction to hear his appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Charles van Cleef
Justice

Date Submitted: January 8, 2025
Date Decided: January 9, 2025

Do Not Publish

3