Scott Ralph Wheelock v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 25, 2023
• Docket: 04-23-00792-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-23-00792-CR

Scott Ralph WHEELOCK, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas Trial Court No. B18-291 Honorable M. Patrick Maguire, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 25, 2023

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

In 2019, appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of driving while intoxicated, third offense or

more. The trial court signed a final judgment of conviction on June 26, 2019. On September 23,

2020, we affirmed appellant’s conviction on direct appeal. See Wheelock v. State, No. 04-19-

00466-CR, 2020 WL 5646474, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 23, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication). 04-23-00792-CR

On July 7, 2023, appellant filed a motion in the trial court entitled “Grounds for Out-of-

Time Motion for New Trial.” The trial court signed an order denying appellant’s motion on July

20, 2023. On August 9, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal from that order.

“With very limited exceptions, we may only exercise jurisdiction in criminal cases over

appeals from final judgments, and we may not exercise jurisdiction over a trial court’s denial of a

motion for an out-of-time motion for new trial.” Taylor v. State, No. 03-12-00174-CR, 2013 WL

599550, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 12, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for

publication); Williams v. State, No. 14-11-00240-CR, 2011 WL 2462491, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] June 21, 2011, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for

publication) (describing appeal from denial of out-of-time motion for new trial as “a post-

conviction collateral attack over which [an intermediate court of appeals] has no jurisdiction”).

Accordingly, on September 22, 2023, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this

appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

On October 6, 2023, appellant filed a response to our order. Appellant’s response presented

argument and authority regarding the merits of his 2019 conviction, our 2020 opinion affirming

that conviction, and his 2023 out-of-time motion for new trial. However, appellant’s response did

not cite any authority that permits us to exercise jurisdiction over the denial of an out-of-time

motion for new trial, and we have found none. See, e.g., Parker v. State, No. 06-18-00102-CR,

2018 WL 3384384, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana July 12, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated

for publication) (order denying out-of-time motion for new trial “is not an order from which the

Texas Legislature has authorized an appeal”). We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See id.

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-