Justin Edward Panus v. State
This text of Justin Edward Panus v. State (Justin Edward Panus 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-20-00099-CR
Justin Edward Panus, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 16-2610-K368, THE HONORABLE RICK J. KENNON, JUDGE PRESIDING
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Justin Edward Panus, acting pro se, has appealed the district court’s denial of his
motion for postconviction forensic DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 64.01-.05.
However, our review of the record reflects that the ruling on Panus’s motion is not signed and
consists only of a handwritten notation at the bottom of the motion stating “denied.” 1 A written
and signed appealable order is a prerequisite to invoking our 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).
1 The clerk’s record case summary has a “Judge’s Docket Entry” dated “01/17/2020” stating “Review of Motion for DNA Testing: Motion Denied (RK).” But that entry does not substitute for a signed order on the motion. Dewalt v. State, 417 S.W.3d 678, 685 n.32 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d) (noting that docket-sheet entries do not qualify as appealable orders). Accordingly, this appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the district court
for entry of a signed order as to Panus’s motion for forensic DNA testing. See Ex parte
Crenshaw, 25 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (noting that
court had previously abated appeal because record did not contain written order reflecting court’s
ruling); see also Sturgis v. State, No. 05-08-00006-CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 2045, at *4-5
(Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 24, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (noting that court had previously
abated appeal because at time of appeal, trial court had not signed written order denying
defendant’s motion for DNA testing). A supplemental clerk’s record containing the signed order
is to be prepared and forwarded to this Court no later than April 30, 2020.
It is so ordered March 31, 2020.
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana
Abated and Remanded
Filed: March 31, 2020
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Justin Edward Panus v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/justin-edward-panus-v-state-texapp-2020.