Samson M. Billiot v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Samson M. Billiot v. State

DecidedAugust 30, 2011

Docket02-11-00298-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Samson M. Billiot v. State (Samson M. Billiot 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.

Bluebook

Samson M. Billiot v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00298-CR

SAMSON M. BILLIOT APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ----------

Samson M. Billiot attempts to appeal from the trial court’s

denial of his motion for new trial. Because the order denying his motion for new

trial is not an appealable order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

No Texas statute authorizes a direct appeal from the denial of a motion for

new trial independently of the direct appeal from an underlying conviction. See

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (West 2006) (―A defendant in any criminal

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed . . . .‖)

(emphasis added); see also id. art. 11.07. We generally have jurisdiction to

consider an appeal by a criminal defendant only from a judgment of conviction.

See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no

pet.).

On July 28, 2011, we sent Billiot a letter stating our concern that we may

not have jurisdiction over his appeal of the denial of his motion for new trial. We

notified him that the appeal may be dismissed unless, on or before August 8,

2011, he or any party filed a response showing grounds for continuing the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Billiot filed a pro se Appellate Brief in

response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 21.4(a); In re R.V., Jr., 8 S.W.3d 692, 693–94 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

1999, pet. denied).

We hold that we lack jurisdiction over Billiot=s appeal of the denial of his

motion for new trial. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 30, 2011

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