DISMISS; and Opinion Filed May 3, 2013.

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00526-CR No. 05-13-00527-CR No. 05-13-00528-CR EX PARTE RENE ADOLPHO GUZMAN On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. C71-01677-N, C71-01678-N, C71-01679-N MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O’Neill, Francis, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice O’Neill Rene Adolpho Guzman appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for production of the grand jury proceedings and transcript in these cases. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeals.

“Jurisdiction concerns the power of a court to hear and determine a case.” Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The jurisdiction of an appellate court must be legally invoked, and, if not, the power of the court to act is as absent as if it did not exist. See id. at 523. As a general rule, an appellate court may consider appeals by criminal defendants only after conviction. Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.––Dallas 1998, no pet.). A court of appeals has no jurisdiction over an appeal absent a written judgment or an appealable order. See Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Nikrasch v. State, 698 S.W.2d 443, 450 (Tex. App.––Dallas 1985, no pet.). The types of orders from which appeals are permitted are orders deferring adjudication of guilt; orders in certain habeas corpus, bail, and extradition proceedings; and orders denying motions for judgments nunc pro tunc. See generally TEX. CODE CRIM. P. ANN. 11.072 (West 2005) (habeas corpus); TEX. R. APP. P. 31 (habeas corpus, bail, extradition); Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (order denying motion for judgment nunc pro tunc); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (deferred adjudication order).

The trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for production of the grand jury proceedings and transcript is not one of the enumerated appealable orders. Absent an appealable order, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. See Gutierrez, 307 S.W.3d at 321; Nikrasch, 698 S.W.2d at 450.

We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

/Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O’NEILL JUSTICE

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 130526F.U05

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT EX PARTE RENE ADOLPHO GUZMAN On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-13-00526-CR Trial Court Cause No. C71-01677-N.

Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, Justices Francis and Fillmore participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 3rd day of May, 2013.

/Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT EX PARTE RENE ADOLPHO GUZMAN On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-13-00527-CR Trial Court Cause No. C71-01678-N.

Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, Justices Francis and Fillmore participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 3rd day of May, 2013.

/Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE

–4– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT EX PARTE RENE ADOLPHO GUZMAN On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-13-00528-CR Trial Court Cause No. C71-01679-N.

Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, Justices Francis and Fillmore participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 3rd day of May, 2013.

/Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE

–5–