Craig MacK v. State, 549 S.W.3d 746

Appellant Craig Mack, an inmate, filed a "Notice of Appeal" challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for a free Reporter’s Record so he could pursue a post-conviction habeas application claiming actual innocence and civil-rights violations.
The filing was made to the Tenth Court of Appeals on November 17, 2017.
Mack did not appeal from a judgment of conviction nor from an appealable interlocutory order.
Lower-court denial of a motion for a free reporter’s record is not treated as an appealable order in Texas appellate practice.
The Court considered prior authority about appellate jurisdiction and the proper vehicle for challenging non-appealable orders.
The Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal; it also noted that complaints about the trial court’s failure to rule on pending motions are not reviewable by direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a motion for a free Reporter’s Record is appealable	Mack contends denial prevents him from preparing a habeas application and seeks appellate review	State contends the denial is not an appealable order; appeal must be from a conviction or appealable interlocutory order	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; denial of free record is not appealable
Whether trial court’s failure to rule on pending motions is reviewable by direct appeal	Mack asked appellate review of the court’s refusal to rule on other motions	State argues such failures cannot be attacked by direct appeal and require other remedies	Court held such complaints cannot be raised by direct appeal (lack of jurisdiction)

Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (standard for appellate jurisdiction is whether the appeal is authorized by law)
Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same principle on jurisdiction and appealability)
In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (trial-court failure to rule on motions is not reviewable by direct appeal)