Ex Parte: Edrick Paul Fuller ( 2022 )

DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 2, 2022
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-01178-CR
EX PARTE EDRICK PAUL FULLER
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. WX21-93120-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Partida-Kipness
Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness
Edrick Paul Fuller’s November 30, 2021 notice of appeal was forwarded to
this Court on December 31, 2021, along with a copy of the trial court’s docket sheet.
The clerk’s record, filed January 20, 2022, shows that on November 12, 2021,
appellant filed an “Application for Pre-Indictment Habeas Corpus Relief,” seeking
to dismiss the prosecution with prejudice for failure to provide a speedy trial. For
the reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal.
Although the trial court’s docket sheet notes “Application for Pre-Indictment
Habeas Corpus Denied” and “Motion for Speedy Trial Denied” on November 30,
2021, the clerk’s record does not contain a written order memorializing the trial
court’s rulings. To perfect an appeal in criminal cases when no motion for new trial
is filed, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the day sentence is
imposed, or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P.
26.2(1). Texas courts have held that “entered” by the court means a signed, written
order. See State v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); State
v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398, 401-02 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Westbrook v. State,
753 S.W.2d 158, 159–60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). A docket sheet entry does not
satisfy the requirements of a written order. State v. Shaw, 4 S.W.3d 875, 878 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1999, no pet.). When, as here, there is no written order from which to
appeal, the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See Sanavongxay, 407
S.W.3d at 259 (concluding that lack of written order leaves court of appeals without
jurisdiction over appeal); Nikrasch v. State, 698 S.W.2d 443, 450 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 1985, no pet.) (court of appeals has no jurisdiction over appeal absent written
judgment or order).
Furthermore, even assuming the trial court were to sign a written order
denying appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus, we would nevertheless
dismiss this appeal because an application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus may
not be used to assert a violation of one’s right to a speedy trial. United States v.
MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 858 (1978); Ex parte Doster, 303 S.W.3d 720, 724 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
And, to the extent the trial court might have treated appellant’s application for a writ
of habeas corpus as a motion for a speedy trial, we would still dismiss for want of
–2–
jurisdiction because a defendant may challenge the denial of a motion for a speedy
trial only following conviction. Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d at 620; see Ex parte
Delbert, 582 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (defendant may
not take interlocutory appeal from pretrial order denying motion to dismiss due to
alleged violation of right to speedy trial).
For these reasons, we conclude we must dismiss this appeal.
/Robbie Partida-Kipness/
ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
211178F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EX PARTE EDRICK PAUL On Appeal from the Criminal District
FULLER Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. WX21-93120-
No. 05-21-01178-CR J.
Opinion delivered by Justice Partida-
Kipness. Justices Schenck and
Osborne participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.
Judgment entered February 2, 2022
–4–