From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Calderon v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Aug 20, 2021
No. 06-21-00077-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 20, 2021)

Opinion

06-21-00077-CR

08-20-2021

ALEXANDER BRANDON CALDERON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


Do Not Publish

Submitted Date: August 19, 2021

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 27432

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RALPH K. BURGESS, JUSTICE

Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, Alexander Brandon Calderon pled guilty to and was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child under fourteen. On September 14, 2018, Calderon was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. On March 29, 2021, Calderon filed a motion for new trial and for an evidentiary hearing in the trial court. On April 9, 2021, the trial court denied the motion as untimely. Calderon has attempted to appeal from the trial court's April 9 order. Because the trial court's order from which Calderon attempts to appeal is a non-appealable order, we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

Generally speaking, in the criminal context, the Texas Legislature has only authorized appeals by criminal defendants from written judgments of conviction. See Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Shumake, 953 S.W.2d 842, 844 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, no pet.). There are a few very limited exceptions to this general rule, see Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.), but the trial court's April 9 order denying Calderon's motion for a new trial as untimely does not fall within one of those exceptions. See generally Ex parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589; see also Fowler v. State, 803 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi 1991, no pet.); Williams v. State, No. 05-08-00983-CR, 2008 WL 2971990, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Aug. 5, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("An order denying a motion for an out-of-time new trial is not an appealable order."). Consequently, we are without jurisdiction over this appeal.

Although unpublished cases have no precedential value, we may take guidance from them "as an aid in developing reasoning that may be employed." Carrillo v. State, 98 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003, pet. ref'd).

By letter dated July 21, 2021, we notified Calderon of this jurisdictional issue and afforded him an opportunity to respond. While Calderon did respond to our July 21 correspondence, he did not demonstrate how this Court has jurisdiction over his appeal.

Because the trial court's April 9 order denying Calderon's motion for new trial is not an appealable order, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.


Summaries of

Calderon v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Aug 20, 2021
No. 06-21-00077-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 20, 2021)
Case details for

Calderon v. State

Case Details

Full title:ALEXANDER BRANDON CALDERON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

Date published: Aug 20, 2021

Citations

No. 06-21-00077-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 20, 2021)