Jose Alfredo Perales v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 4, 2016
Docket01-15-00637-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Jose Alfredo Perales v. State (Jose Alfredo Perales 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
Jose Alfredo Perales v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Opinion issued October 4, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-00637-CR ——————————— JOSE ALFREDO PERALES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 71698

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In 2014, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of the state-jail-felony

offense of theft—aggregated, and assessed his punishment at confinement for eighteen months.1 In June 2015, appellant filed a pro se motion for time credit in

which he sought “diligent participation credit” to reduce his sentence. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 15(h) (West Supp. 2016). The trial court denied the

motion, and appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for want

of jurisdiction.

The right to appeal in a criminal case is a statutorily created right. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006); Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801,

805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see also Keaton v. State, 294 S.W.3d 870, 871 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.) (citation omitted) (“The right to appeal is conferred

by the Legislature and generally, a party may appeal only those cases for which the

Legislature has authorized appeal.”). Generally, a criminal defendant may appeal

only from a final judgment. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02; State v.

Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The denial of a

post-conviction motion for time credit is not an appealable order. Abbott v. State,

271 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 31.03(a), (b), (e)(4), 31.09 (West Supp. 2016). 2 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

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

Related

State v. Sellers
790 S.W.2d 316 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Bayless v. State
91 S.W.3d 801 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Abbott v. State
271 S.W.3d 694 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Keaton v. State
294 S.W.3d 870 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jose Alfredo Perales v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-alfredo-perales-v-state-texapp-2016.