Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 16, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

___________________

NO. 14-11-00464-CR

___________________

RONALD MANNING, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

MEMORANDUM  OPINION

Appellant’s conviction for theft was affirmed on July 13, 2006.  Manning v. State, No. 14-05-01084-CR; 2006 WL 1911482 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 13, 2006, no pet.) (not designated for publication).  On March 17, 2011, this court denied appellant’s motion to compel delivery of the trial transcript and clerk’s record, in connection with his attempt to file a new brief in that cause number.  After that ruling, appellant filed a writ of mandamus in the trial court requesting that the trial court order the district clerk to provide him with a free copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. This is an attempted appeal from the purported denial of appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus in the trial court. 

Generally, an appellate court has jurisdiction only to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction.  Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).  Exceptions 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. 

Appellant contends his petition for writ of mandamus was denied by operation of law because the trial court failed to rule on his petition. While this is an incorrect statement, the denial of a ruling on petition for writ of mandamus is not a separately appealable order.  Because this appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Brown, and Christopher.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).