Roy David Perry v. the State of Texas

Tex. App. Ct., 11th Dist. (Eastland)

Roy David Perry v. the State of Texas

CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)

DecidedApril 30, 2026

Docket11-25-00057-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Roy David Perry v. the State of Texas (Roy David Perry v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roy David Perry v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed April 30, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-25-00057-CR ___________

ROY DAVID PERRY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 350th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15936-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Appellant, Roy David Perry, of the first-degree felony offense of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and the third- degree felony offense of tampering with physical evidence. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d) (West Supp. 2025); TEX. PENAL CODE Ann. § 37.09(a), (c) (West Supp. 2025). After finding the State’s enhancement allegations to be “true,” the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for forty years and twenty-five years, respectively, in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. Appellant has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by Appellant and Appellant’s appellate counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). We grant Appellant’s motion and dismiss this appeal.1

W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE

April 30, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1 Appellant’s motion to dismiss was filed after the parties’ briefs were filed in this court. In their briefs, Appellant argued, and the State agreed, that the trial court’s judgment for the tampering conviction should be modified to correct the designation of the offense and statute of conviction. Although we have the authority to modify and reform a trial court’s judgment when we have the necessary information to do so, see Rhodes v. State, 712 S.W.3d 226, 235 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2025, no pet.), we may only issue judgments as authorized by Rule 43.2. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b), (f) (stating, in relevant part, that a court of appeals may modify and affirm a trial court’s judgment or dismiss an appeal). Thus, this deficiency may be more appropriately addressed to the trial court in a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. 2

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

Opinion filed April 30, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-25-00057-CR ___________

ROY DAVID PERRY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 350th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15936-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Appellant, Roy David Perry, of the first-degree felony offense of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and the third- degree felony offense of tampering with physical evidence. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d) (West Supp. 2025); TEX. PENAL CODE Ann. § 37.09(a), (c) (West Supp. 2025). After finding the State’s enhancement allegations to be “true,” the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for forty years and twenty-five years, respectively, in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. Appellant has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by Appellant and Appellant’s appellate counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). We grant Appellant’s motion and dismiss this appeal.1

W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE

April 30, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1 Appellant’s motion to dismiss was filed after the parties’ briefs were filed in this court. In their briefs, Appellant argued, and the State agreed, that the trial court’s judgment for the tampering conviction should be modified to correct the designation of the offense and statute of conviction. Although we have the authority to modify and reform a trial court’s judgment when we have the necessary information to do so, see Rhodes v. State, 712 S.W.3d 226, 235 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2025, no pet.), we may only issue judgments as authorized by Rule 43.2. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b), (f) (stating, in relevant part, that a court of appeals may modify and affirm a trial court’s judgment or dismiss an appeal). Thus, this deficiency may be more appropriately addressed to the trial court in a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roy David Perry v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-david-perry-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp11-2026.