From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Panus v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Mar 31, 2020
NO. 03-20-00099-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 31, 2020)

Summary

abating appeal from denial of motion for DNA testing under similar circumstances

Summary of this case from Johnson v. State

Opinion

NO. 03-20-00099-CR

03-31-2020

Justin Edward Panus, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee


FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 16-2610-K368 , THE HONORABLE RICK J. KENNON, JUDGE PRESIDING ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Justin Edward Panus, acting pro se, has appealed the district court's denial of his motion for postconviction forensic DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 64.01-.05. However, our review of the record reflects that the ruling on Panus's motion is not signed and consists only of a handwritten notation at the bottom of the motion stating "denied." A written and signed appealable order is a prerequisite to invoking our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1); State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398, 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Dewalt v. State, 417 S.W.3d 678, 685 n.32 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref'd).

The clerk's record case summary has a "Judge's Docket Entry" dated "01/17/2020" stating "Review of Motion for DNA Testing: Motion Denied (RK)." But that entry does not substitute for a signed order on the motion. Dewalt v. State, 417 S.W.3d 678, 685 n.32 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref'd) (noting that docket-sheet entries do not qualify as appealable orders).

Accordingly, this appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the district court for entry of a signed order as to Panus's motion for forensic DNA testing. See Ex parte Crenshaw, 25 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (noting that court had previously abated appeal because record did not contain written order reflecting court's ruling); see also Sturgis v. State, No. 05-08-00006-CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 2045, at *4-5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 24, 2010, pet. ref'd) (mem. op.) (noting that court had previously abated appeal because at time of appeal, trial court had not signed written order denying defendant's motion for DNA testing). A supplemental clerk's record containing the signed order is to be prepared and forwarded to this Court no later than April 30, 2020.

It is so ordered March 31, 2020. Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana Abated and Remanded Filed: March 31, 2020 Do Not Publish


Summaries of

Panus v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Mar 31, 2020
NO. 03-20-00099-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 31, 2020)

abating appeal from denial of motion for DNA testing under similar circumstances

Summary of this case from Johnson v. State
Case details for

Panus v. State

Case Details

Full title:Justin Edward Panus, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

Court:TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Date published: Mar 31, 2020

Citations

NO. 03-20-00099-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 31, 2020)

Citing Cases

Panus v. State

We previously abated this appeal and remanded the cause to the district court for entry of an order. Panus…

Johnson v. State

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the district court for entry of a signed order…