Roberto Juan Botello v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                       COURT OF APPEALS
    EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    EL PASO, TEXAS
    ROBERTO JUAN BOTELLO,                              §                 No. 08-23-00114-CR
    Appellant,           §                    Appeal from the
    v.                                                 §             226th Judicial District Court
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                §                of Bexar County, Texas
    Appellee.            §                  (TC# 2021CR8821)
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant Roberto Juan Botello appealed from the trial court’s judgment of February 16,
    2023, adjudicating him guilty of the offense of possession of child pornography and imposing a
    sentence of six years confinement. 1 The trial court’s judgment followed Appellant’s plea of true
    to the State’s amended revocation motion. On March 20, 2023, Appellant filed a notice of appeal
    challenging said judgment. On that same date, he also filed with the trial court a motion for new
    trial and motion to reform the sentence contained in the judgment. The trial court granted
    Appellant’s motion for new trial on April 21, 2023. In the meantime, this appeal remained pending
    with this Court, yet no Appellant’s brief was filed when due on May 4, 2023.
    1
    This case was transferred from our sister court in San Antonio pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s docket
    equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. Section 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of
    Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
    On May 22, 2023, we abated the appeal and issued an order directing the trial court to
    conduct a hearing to determine whether Appellant wished to continue the appeal and whether he
    had been deprived of effective assistance of counsel. The trial court held the requested hearing on
    May 31, 2023. Appellant, his counsel, and counsel for the State all announced their presence for
    the record. Appellant’s counsel clarified that Appellant’s motion for new trial sought a new trial
    for sentencing only, which was granted. The State confirmed its agreement with the defense on
    the procedural posture of the case. Appellant’s counsel also clarified that prior counsel had filed a
    notice of appeal solely out of an abundance of caution, but Appellant had no desire to appeal.
    When asked whether he wanted to continue with his appeal, Appellant responded, “No, I do not,
    Your Honor.”
    The trial court’s grant of a new trial restores the case to its position before the former trial.
    TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b). And such grant of a new trial renders the appeal moot. See TEX. R. APP.
    P. 21.9(b); see also Villegas v. State, No. 01-12-00605-CR, 
    2012 WL 6208301
    , at *1
    (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 13, 2012, no pet.) (mem.op., not designated for publication)
    (per curiam) (dismissing appeal as moot where trial court granted new trial even though appellant
    had not signed a voluntary dismissal motion); Waller v. State, 
    931 S.W.2d 640
    , 643-44 (Tex.
    App.—Dallas 1996, no pet.) (dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction when a new trial was
    granted).
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f).
    GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice
    June 15, 2023
    Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
    (Do Not Publish)
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-23-00114-CR

Filed Date: 6/15/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/22/2023