Quincy Deshan Butler v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Opinion issued January 19, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-22-00908-CR
NO. 01-22-00909-CR
———————————
QUINCY DESHAN BUTLER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 506th District Court
Waller County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 12-10-14234 and 12-10-14235
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Quincy Deshan Butler, is attempting to appeal from the trial court’s
November 15, 2022 order denying Butler’s motion requesting that he be permitted
to withdraw his plea in two trial court causes. The State of Texas filed a motion to
dismiss, claiming that this Court lacks jurisdiction over these appeals. Butler filed
a response to the State’s motion to dismiss. We dismiss the appeals.
On August 6, 2013, Butler was convicted of the offenses of possession of a
controlled substance and evading with a vehicle. Butler was sentenced to 13 years’
imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. Butler did not appeal these convictions. On November 7, 2022, Butler filed
in the trial court a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The trial court denied these
motions by written order signed on November 15, 2022. Butler filed a notice of
appeal from this order on December 5, 2022.
In each of Butler’s appellate causes, the State filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction, arguing that an order denying a post-judgment motion to
withdraw a guilty plea is not an appealable order and that the trial court lost plenary
power to enter the orders denying Butler’s motions. Butler responded to the State’s
motion, arguing that the trial court had plenary power and that the trial court’s orders
are appealable.
Generally, an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a
final judgment of conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; Abbott v. State,
271 S.W.3d 694, 697 & n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We do not have jurisdiction to
review interlocutory orders unless jurisdiction has been expressly conferred by
statute. See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Because
2
the trial court order Butler is attempting to appeal is a post-conviction interlocutory
order for which no statute permits appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Any other
pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Farris.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3