Cha-Ka Romain Johnson v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 28, 2020
Docket03-20-00461-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Cha-Ka Romain Johnson v. State (Cha-Ka Romain Johnson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cha-Ka Romain Johnson v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00461-CR

Cha-Ka Romain Johnson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY NO. 8127, THE HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant Cha-Ka Romain Johnson, proceeding pro se, has filed a notice of

appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion for forensic DNA testing and request for

appointment of counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 64.01–.05. However, our review of the

record reflects that the district court has not signed an order denying the motion.1

A written and signed appealable order is a prerequisite to invoking this Court’s

appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1); State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398, 402

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Dewalt v. State, 417 S.W.3d 678, 685 n.32 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013,

pet. ref’d). However, such a jurisdictional defect is curable—we treat the notice of appeal as

1 The district court’s docket sheet reflects that the district court has denied the order, and the record includes a letter from the district clerk informing Johnson that his motion has been denied. However, the record contains no written order. prematurely filed, abate the appeal, and remand the case to the trial court for preparation of an

appealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 27.1(b); Dewalt, 417 S.W.3d at 685 n.32. Accordingly,

we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the district court for entry of a signed order denying

Johnson’s motion for forensic DNA testing and request for appointment of counsel. See Tex.

Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.05; Swearingen v. State, 189 S.W.3d 779, 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006);

see also Panus v. State, No. 03-20-00099-CR, 2020 WL 1528050, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin

Mar. 31, 2020) (per curiam order and mem. op.) (abating appeal from denial of motion for DNA

testing under similar circumstances). A supplemental clerk’s record containing the signed order

is to be prepared and forwarded to this Court no later than November 12, 2020.

It is so ordered October 28, 2020.

Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Smith

Abated and Remanded

Filed: October 28, 2020

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Swearingen v. State
189 S.W.3d 779 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
State v. Rosenbaum
818 S.W.2d 398 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Suzanne Kearns Dewalt v. State
417 S.W.3d 678 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cha-Ka Romain Johnson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cha-ka-romain-johnson-v-state-texapp-2020.