Quincy Deshan Butler v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 19, 2023
• Docket: 01-22-00909-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued January 19, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00908-CR NO. 01-22-00909-CR ——————————— QUINCY DESHAN BUTLER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 506th District Court Waller County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 12-10-14234 and 12-10-14235

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Quincy Deshan Butler, is attempting to appeal from the trial court’s

November 15, 2022 order denying Butler’s motion requesting that he be permitted

to withdraw his plea in two trial court causes. The State of Texas filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that this Court lacks jurisdiction over these appeals. Butler filed

a response to the State’s motion to dismiss. We dismiss the appeals.

On August 6, 2013, Butler was convicted of the offenses of possession of a

controlled substance and evading with a vehicle. Butler was sentenced to 13 years’

imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice. Butler did not appeal these convictions. On November 7, 2022, Butler filed

in the trial court a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The trial court denied these

motions by written order signed on November 15, 2022. Butler filed a notice of

appeal from this order on December 5, 2022.

In each of Butler’s appellate causes, the State filed a motion to dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction, arguing that an order denying a post-judgment motion to

withdraw a guilty plea is not an appealable order and that the trial court lost plenary

power to enter the orders denying Butler’s motions. Butler responded to the State’s

motion, arguing that the trial court had plenary power and that the trial court’s orders

are appealable.

Generally, an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a

final judgment of conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; Abbott v. State,

271 S.W.3d 694, 697 & n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We do not have jurisdiction to

review interlocutory orders unless jurisdiction has been expressly conferred by

statute. See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Because

2 the trial court order Butler is attempting to appeal is a post-conviction interlocutory

order for which no statute permits appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Any other

pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Farris.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).