Victor Moreno v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 07-25-00262-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00262-CR

VICTOR MORENO, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 242nd District Court Swisher County, Texas Trial Court No. A-4582-16-02, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding

September 30, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Victor Moreno, appearing pro se, appeals from the trial court’s order

mooting his “Motion to Void Indictment.” We dismiss the purported appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

In 2016, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon1 and

sentenced to thirty years of confinement. He did not immediately appeal his conviction

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2). but instead filed notices of appeal in April 2018 and April 2020. Those appeals were

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.2 Appellant has since attempted several appeals from

post-conviction orders which were also dismissed for want of jurisdiction.3 In August

2025, Appellant filed a “Motion to Void Indictment,” once more challenging his final felony

conviction. On August 11, 2025, the trial court mooted the motion. Appellant now seeks

to appeal that ruling.

We have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a judgment of conviction or where

appellate jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d

694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The trial court’s order dismissing Appellant’s post-

conviction motion to void the indictment as moot is neither a judgment of conviction nor

an appealable order authorized by law. See Moses v. State, No. 05-19-01025-CR, 2019

Tex. App. LEXIS 8603, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sep. 24, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not

designated for publication) (dismissing appeal from post-conviction order denying motion

to quash indictment for lack of jurisdiction).

2 Moreno v. State, Nos. 07-18-00123-CR, 07-18-00124-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2948, at *2

(Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 25, 2018, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Moreno v. State, No. 07-20-00136-CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 5118, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 10, 2020, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We advised Appellant in both opinions that he could seek an out-of-time appeal by filing an application for writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3 Moreno v. State, No. 07-20-00239-CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 7486, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo

Sept. 15, 2020) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (appeal from order denying motion for appointed counsel); Moreno v. State, No. 07-21-00065-CR, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 3186, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 27, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (appeal from Order on Defendant’s Motion to Reinstate Appeal); Moreno v. State, Nos. 07-21-00269-CR, 07-21-00270- CR, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 9443, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Nov. 22, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (appeal from orders denying motions for free copies of the record); Moreno v. State, No. 07-23-00103-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 2611, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 21, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (appeal from Order on Defendant’s Petition for Nunc Pro Tunc Order Seeking Deletion of Deadly Weapon Finding and Order on Defendant’s Motion for Court Appointed Counsel). 2 By letter of September 8, 2025, we directed Appellant to show how we have

jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant has filed a response but has not demonstrated

grounds for continuing the appeal.

Because the order mooting Appellant’s post-conviction motion to void the

indictment is not an appealable order, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.