Samson M. Billiot v. State ( 2011 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00298-CR
SAMSON M. BILLIOT APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Samson M. Billiot attempts to appeal from the trial court’s
denial of his motion for new trial. Because the order denying his motion for new
trial is not an appealable order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
No Texas statute authorizes a direct appeal from the denial of a motion for
new trial independently of the direct appeal from an underlying conviction. See
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (West 2006) (―A defendant in any criminal
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed . . . .‖)
(emphasis added); see also id. art. 11.07. We generally have jurisdiction to
consider an appeal by a criminal defendant only from a judgment of conviction.
See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no
pet.).
On July 28, 2011, we sent Billiot a letter stating our concern that we may
not have jurisdiction over his appeal of the denial of his motion for new trial. We
notified him that the appeal may be dismissed unless, on or before August 8,
2011, he or any party filed a response showing grounds for continuing the
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Billiot filed a pro se Appellate Brief in
response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R.
App. P. 21.4(a); In re R.V., Jr., 8 S.W.3d 692, 693–94 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
1999, pet. denied).
We hold that we lack jurisdiction over Billiot=s appeal of the denial of his
motion for new trial. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 30, 2011
2