Earl Wayne Humphries v. State ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • DISMISS; and Opinion Filed September 4, 2018.
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-18-00460-CR
    No. 05-18-00461-CR
    EARL WAYNE HUMPHRIES, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-75667-R & F17-75062-R
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Myers, and Justice Stoddart
    Opinion by Justice Stoddart
    Earl Wayne Humphries was indicted for the capital murders of Alejandro Morales-
    Martinez and Luis Arturo Segovia. He pleaded guilty to the two lesser charges of murder, each
    enhanced by two prior convictions, under plea bargain agreements with the State. The trial court
    followed the plea bargain agreements, found appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at thirty-
    five years in prison in each case. Appellant then filed notices of appeal with this Court. For the
    reason that follows, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.
    A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal as set out in the code of criminal
    procedure and the rules of appellate procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West
    2018); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a). Rule 25.2 provides that in “a plea-bargain case—that is, a case in
    which a defendant’s plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the
    punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant,” a defendant may
    appeal only “those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial,” or
    “after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Although a
    defendant under these circumstances does not waive his right to file a motion for new trial, any
    notice of appeal filed by him fails to “initiate the appellate process,” thereby depriving this Court
    of jurisdiction over the appeal. Lundgren v. State, 
    434 S.W.3d 594
    , 599, 600 (Tex. Crim. App.
    2014) (emphasis added).
    Here, appellant entered into a plea agreement with the State in each case. The agreements
    stated appellant would plead guilty to each offense; in exchange, the State agreed to reduce the
    offenses from capital murder to the lesser-included offense of murder which necessarily affected
    the punishment range for each case. On April 3, 2018, the trial court followed the plea bargain
    agreement, found appellant guilty of murder, found the two enhancement paragraphs true, and
    assessed punishment at thirty-five years in prison in each case. The trial court’s certifications of
    appellant’s right to appeal state the cases involve plea bargains and appellant has no right to appeal.
    Appellant filed his notices of appeal followed by motions for new trial. Although appellant
    did not waive his right to file his motions for new trial, he did waive his right to appeal when he
    pleaded guilty under plea agreements with the State which were followed by the trial court. As a
    result, appellant’s April 19 notices of appeal are ineffective to initiate the appellate process, and
    we lack jurisdiction over these appeals. See 
    id. In reaching
    this conclusion, we necessarily reject appellant’s invitation, raised in his July
    2, 2018 motion, to abate these cases and remand them to the trial court for a hearing on his motions
    for new trial. Although he concedes the seventy-five day deadline for holding a hearing on his
    motions for new trial passed on June 17, appellant claims we could nevertheless abate the appeals
    for a hearing using the “power granted” to us under rule 2 of the rules of appellate procedure. TEX.
    –2–
    R. APP. P. 2. To invoke the power of rule 2, or any appellate rule, this Court must first have
    jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 
    981 S.W.2d 208
    , 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Because we lack
    jurisdiction, we cannot grant appellant the relief he requests.
    We dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.
    /Craig Stoddart/
    CRAIG STODDART
    JUSTICE
    Do Not Publish
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
    180460F.U05
    –3–
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    EARL WAYNE HUMPHRIES, Appellant                    On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District
    Court, Dallas County, Texas
    No. 05-18-00460-CR         V.                      Trial Court Cause No. F17-75667-R.
    Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                       Chief Justice Wright and Justice Myers
    participating.
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of
    jurisdiction.
    Judgment entered this 4th day of September, 2018.
    –4–
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    EARL WAYNE HUMPHRIES, Appellant                    On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District
    Court, Dallas County, Texas
    No. 05-18-00461-CR         V.                      Trial Court Cause No. F17-75062-R.
    Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                       Chief Justice Wright and Justice Myers
    participating.
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of
    jurisdiction.
    Judgment entered this 4th day of September, 2018.
    –5–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-18-00461-CR

Filed Date: 9/4/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/6/2018