Quincy Deshan Butler v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

Quincy Deshan Butler v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 19, 2023·No. 01-22-00909-CR·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued January 19, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

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

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Do not publish.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).

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

Opinion issued January 19, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

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

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).

Quincy Deshan Butler v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Quincy Deshan Butler v. the State of Texas (Quincy Deshan Butler v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related