Jose Alfredo Perales v. State
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.
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 Do not publish.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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jose Alfredo Perales v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-alfredo-perales-v-state-texapp-2016.