Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Joseph Milton Mitchum v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 13-25-00589-CR
• Nature of Suit: Poss or Promotion of Child Pornography

• Disposition: Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction

Lead Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00589-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

JOSEPH MILTON MITCHUM, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 117TH DISTRICT COURT
OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña and West
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West

On November 4, 2025, appellant Joseph Milton Mitchum filed a pro se notice of

appeal regarding his judgment of conviction for the possession of child pornography in

trial court cause number 23FC-3496B (S1) in the 117th District Court of Nueces County,

Texas. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 43.26(d). The trial court’s certification of appellant’s right

of appeal states that the matter is a plea bargain case, appellant has no right of appeal,
and appellant has waived the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). We dismiss

the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

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). A certification is defective if it is inaccurate when compared to the

record, and appellate courts have a duty to review the record in ascertaining whether the

certification is defective. Marsh v. State, 444 S.W.3d 654, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);

Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 615.

On December 2, 2025, we ordered appellant’s counsel to review the record and

determine whether the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right of appeal was correct.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel advised the Court that appellant did not have a right

of appeal. However, upon review of the documents before us, we determined that there

2
appeared to be a potential conflict between appellant and his court-appointed counsel

that might necessitate the appointment of new counsel. Accordingly, we abated and

remanded this case to the trial court, and we directed the trial court to determine, inter

alia, whether appellant was entitled to new court-appointed counsel. See Carroll v. State,

176 S.W.3d 249, 255 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d).

On remand, the trial court appointed new appellate counsel for appellant. We

reinstated the appeal, and by order issued on January 5, 2026, we directed appellant’s

newly appointed counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant has

the right of appeal; and (3) provide this Court with counsel’s findings as to whether

appellant has a right to appeal and whether the trial court has issued an amended

certification. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614–15; Carroll v.

State, 119 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). On February 2,

2026, appellant’s newly appointed counsel advised the Court that appellant has no right

of appeal as correctly reflected in the trial court’s certification.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the

applicable law, is of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. As stated

previously, the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right of appeal shows that appellant

does not have the right to appeal, and the record before the Court supports that

determination. Under these circumstances, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

require us to dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 613;

3
Vasquez, 695 S.W.3d at 559; Torres, 493 S.W.3d at 215; Pena, 323 S.W.3d at 525–26.

Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

JON WEST
Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the
5th day of March, 2026.

4