John Albert Estrada v. State
This text of John Albert Estrada v. State (John Albert Estrada 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.
Opinion
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed August 6, 2014.
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01010-CR
JOHN ALBERT ESTRADA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F93-26578-PJ
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Fillmore John Albert Estrada was convicted, following the adjudication of his guilt, for aggravated
sexual assault of a child. The trial court assessed punishment at twenty years’ imprisonment.
This Court affirmed appellant’s conviction on direct appeal. Estrada v. State, No. 05-96-00752-
CR, 1999 WL 521793 (Tex. App.––Dallas July 23, 1999, pet. ref’d, untimely filed) (op. on
reh’g). Appellant filed in the trial court a pro se “Motion for the Court to Call the Substantiation
of Guilt Judgment of May 16 1994 “Void” For Failure of the Court to Follow Statutory Mandate
Art. 1.15 V.C.C.P. and Calling the Adjudication of Guilt on 1 March 1996 “Void” for Failure of
the Court to Follow Statutory Mandate Art. 1.15 V.C.C.P. and for not having Subject Matter
Jurisdiction or Jurisdiction to Enter Judgment Against the Undersign[ed] Juan Alberto Estrada.”
The trial court denied the motion and appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We conclude we
lack jurisdiction over the appeal. “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 did not exist. See id. at
523. An appellate court may consider an appeal by a criminal defendant only after conviction or
the entry of an appealable order. See Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.––Dallas
1998, no pet.). An order denying a motion to declare an eighteen-year-old conviction void is not
an appealable order. See id. (identifying types of appealable orders).
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
/Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47
141010F.U05
–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
JOHN ALBERT ESTRADA, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-14-01010-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F93-26578-PJ. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Evans and Lewis participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered this 6th day of August, 2014.
–3–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
John Albert Estrada v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-albert-estrada-v-state-texapp-2014.