Johnny Deanda v. State ( 2012 )

NO. 07-11-00446-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
MARCH 29, 2012
JOHNNY DEANDA, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 121ST DISTRICT COURT OF TERRY COUNTY;
NO. 2753; HONORABLE KELLY G. MOORE, JUDGE
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Johnny Deanda, a prison inmate appearing pro se, filed notice of
appeal from the trial court’s ruling on his request for additional pre-sentence jail-time
credit. We will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Appellant was convicted of attempted murder in 1983 and sentenced to twenty
years in prison. He remains in prison, apparently because he has been paroled at times
but returned to incarceration after revocation. In October 2011, appellant filed a motion
in the trial court for judgment nunc pro tunc seeking pre-sentence jail-time credit.
Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling on his motion, he filed notice of appeal.
On our own motion we questioned our jurisdiction.1 See Ryan v. State, No. 07-
09-0340-CR, 2010 Tex. App. Lexis 883, at *2-3 (Tex.App.--Amarillo Feb. 8, 2010, no
pet.) (mem. op.) (“An appellate court is obligated to determine, on its own motion, its
jurisdiction to entertain an appeal”) (citing State v. Roberts, 940 S.W.2d 655, 657
(Tex.Crim.App. 1996), overruled on other grounds, State v. Medrano, 67 S.W.3d 892,
901-03 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)). The Texas Constitution provides that the courts of
appeals have appellate jurisdiction “under such restrictions and regulations as may be
prescribed by law.” Tex. Const. art. V, § 6(a). Thus a party may generally appeal only
those cases authorized by the Legislature for appeal. Keaton v. State, 294 S.W.3d 870,
871 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 2009, no pet.); see Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 941
(Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (“It is axiomatic that a party may appeal only that which the
Legislature has authorized”). “The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether
the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Abbott v.
State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). “A defendant in any criminal
action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed . . . .” Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (West 2006). For appellate purposes, a “criminal action no
longer exists after a defendant has been convicted and the direct appeal process from
that conviction has been exhausted.” Skinner v. State, 305 S.W.3d 593, 594
(Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (per curiam). In the present matter, we find no appellate
jurisdiction for review of an order denying a post-conviction request for nunc pro tunc
jail-time credit. See Abbott, 271 S.W.3d at 697 (finding no jurisdictional basis for court
of appeals to review trial court’s post-judgment order denying defendant’s time-credit
1
By letter we notified the parties of our jurisdictional concern and abated the
case until further order. We now order the abatement dissolved.
2
motion). We accordingly dismiss appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. 2 Tex. R.
App. P. 43.2(f).
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
2
Appellant’s motion for additional time to file his appellate brief is dismissed as
moot.
3