Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018

Paula Sinclair v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided August 30, 2018

Opinion

Opinion issued August 30, 2018

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-18-00479-CR

———————————

PAULA SINCLAIR, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 17-DCR-076949 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Paula Sinclair, attempts to appeal from “the trial court’s denial of her motion for new trial on May 22, 2018.” We dismiss the appeal.

Generally, this Court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant when there has been a final judgment of conviction. See Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961); Saliba v. State, 45 S.W.3d 329, 329 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.). Here, the trial court, on March 9, 2018, dismissed the case upon appellant’s conviction in another case, trial court cause number 17- DCR-079457.1 Accordingly, there is no judgment of conviction in the underlying case, only an order of dismissal. Absent a judgment of conviction, we do not have jurisdiction to consider appellant’s appeal. See Workman, 343 S.W.2d at 447; Skillern v. State, 355 S.W.3d 262, 266–67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d); see, e.g., Meeks v. State, Nos. 14-14-00497-CR, 14-14-00581-CR, 2014 WL 3843821, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 5, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (determining court was without jurisdiction when appellant filed notice of appeal of order dismissing case because appellant had been convicted in another case); Ballard v. State, Nos. 01-08-00947-CR, 01-08- 00948-CR, 2009 WL 3248197, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 8, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (explaining court had no jurisdiction because “cause is finally disposed of by a judgment of dismissal and there is no judgment of conviction”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 The clerk’s record filed in this Court does not include a motion for new trial filed in the underlying trial court proceeding but does include the trial court’s “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” stating that the trial court “rules to deny [appellant’s] motion for new trial.” However, these findings and conclusions were filed in trial court “Cause Numbers: 17-DCR-079457, 17-DCR-079458, 17-DCR-079459, and 17-DCR-079460,” not cause number 17-DCR-076949, the case underlying this appeal.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.