Christopher Young Courtney v. the State of Texas
This text of Christopher Young Courtney v. the State of Texas (Christopher Young Courtney v. the State of Texas) 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.
Opinion
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________
No. 02-22-00161-CR No. 02-22-00162-CR ___________________________
CHRISTOPHER YOUNG COURTNEY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 485th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 1688479D, 1699585D
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Christopher Young Courtney appeals from two trial court cases. In
trial court cause number 1688479D, Courtney was sentenced on April 27, 2022, to 45
days’ confinement for theft under $2,500 with two or more previous convictions. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D). No motion for new trial was filed, so
Courtney’s notice of appeal was due May 27, 2022, but was not filed until August 5,
2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). With respect to trial court cause number
1699585D, Courtney attempts to appeal from a plea in bar, that is, his admission of an
unadjudicated offense under Penal Code Section 12.45. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 12.45. Generally, with exceptions inapplicable here, this court has jurisdiction to
consider appeals by criminal defendants only after a final judgment of conviction. See
McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.)
(per curiam). An order granting a plea in bar is not a judgment of conviction. See
Hillburn v. State, 946 S.W.2d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, no pet.)
(per curiam); see also Bradley v. State, Nos. 02-14-00218-CR, 02-14-00219-CR, 02-14-
00220-CR, 2014 WL 3029220, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 3, 2014, no pet.)
(per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
On August 18, 2022, we notified Courtney of our concern that we lack
jurisdiction over his appeals and stated that unless he filed a response showing
grounds for continuing the appeals, we would dismiss them. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.
We received no response from Courtney.
2 Because Courtney’s notice of appeal was not timely and because a timely notice
of appeal is an essential component of our jurisdiction, we dismiss appeal number 02-
22-00161-CR. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), 26.2(a)(1) (stating that a defendant has
thirty days after the imposition of a sentence to file a notice of appeal), 43.2(f); Slaton
v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108,
110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (discussing the rule of appellate procedure that preceded
Rule 26.2, which likewise required the filing of a notice of appeal within thirty days
after the imposition of a sentence, and dismissing an untimely appeal for want of
jurisdiction). And because we do not have jurisdiction to hear a purported appeal
from a judgment granting a plea in bar, we dismiss appeal number 02-22-00162-CR.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.45; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Hillburn, 946 S.W.2d at 886
(holding appellate court lacks jurisdiction over appeal from judgment granting a plea
in bar under Penal Code Section 12.45).
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: December 8, 2022
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Christopher Young Courtney v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-young-courtney-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2022.