Raspberry v. State

Full title: RANDY LYNN RASPBERRY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont

Date published: Aug 31, 2022

No. 09-20-00254-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2022)

Opinion

09-20-00254-CR

08-31-2022

RANDY LYNN RASPBERRY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

Submitted on March 2, 2022

On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 90-06-00640-CR

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

In 1991, pursuant to a plea agreement, the then presiding judge of the 359th District Court found Randy Lynn Raspberry guilty of sexual assault, a second-degree felony.¹ Around nineteen-years later, Raspberry filed a petition seeking an exemption in that same court from the sex offender registration requirements of Articles 62.251 and 62.301 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.² We dismiss the appeal because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

1 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(f).

2 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.251, 62.301.

In a criminal case, the right to appeal is a statutory right that may not be enlarged by the courts.³ Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a “a defendant in any criminal action has the right to appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed.”⁴ Generally, defendants have the right to appeal from final judgments.⁵ Here, Raspberry appeals from a ruling denying his petition asking for an exemption from the registration requirements applicable to convicted sex offenders; he has not appealed from a final judgment. But absent a statute authorizing a defendant to appeal from an order denying a petition seeking an exemption like the exemption Raspberry wanted, there is no legislative grant to the appellate courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over the ruling from which Raspberry appeals.⁶

3 Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

4 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02.

5 State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.).

6 Dewalt v. State, 417 S.W.3d 678, 686 (Tex. App.-Austin 2013, pet. ref'd); Ex parte McGregor, 145 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004); Phillips v. State, No. 09-04-414-CR, 2005 WL 857034, at *1 (Tex. App.-Beaumont Apr. 13, 2005, no pet.) (mem op., not designated for publication).

Because no statute provides appellate courts with jurisdiction over the ruling Raspberry appeals, we hold that we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the trial court's ruling. The appeal is

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.