Reginald Arleigh Noble v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Dismiss and Opinion Filed December 8, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-01179-CR
REGINALD ARLEIGH NOBLE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F00-50025-K
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Breedlove
Opinion by Justice Breedlove
Reginald Arleigh Noble was convicted in 2000 of aggravated sexual assault
of a child and sentenced to life in prison. His conviction was affirmed in 2002 on
direct appeal. See Noble v. State, No. 08-01-00035-CR, 2002 WL 221886 (Tex.
App.—El Paso Feb. 4, 2002, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).
On November 22, 2023, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal asserting the
prior convictions used to enhance his punishment were void and the life sentence he
received was outside the range of punishment. Appellant also filed numerous other
motions in the trial court with the notice of appeal. The record does not show that
the trial court has ruled on any of the motions.
An appellant has the right to appeal when a trial court enters a “judgment of
guilt or other appealable order.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), 26.2(a). The trial
court “enters” an appealable order by signing a written order. See State v.
Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (court of appeals has
no jurisdiction over State’s appeal until there is signed written order); State ex rel.
Sutton v. Bage, 822 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (orig. proceeding)
(determining that trial court has not entered order justifying appeal until written
order is signed); see also Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. Crim. App.
1993) (defendant’s timetable for filing notice of appeal from adverse habeas decision
begins when appealable order signed).
Although it appears appellant has filed motions in the trial court, to date the
trial court has not signed or entered any appealable orders on these motions.
Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal does not confer jurisdiction on this Court.
See Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d at 259.
To the extent appellant seeks to challenge his December 6, 2000 judgment,
his November 22, 2023 notice of appeal is untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)
(absent timely filed motion for new trial, notice of appeal must be filed within 30
days after day sentence is imposed). Alternatively, if appellant is attempting to
collaterally attack his final criminal conviction, we also lack jurisdiction. As we
–2–
have previously informed appellant, a collateral attack on a judgment falls within
the scope of a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure. See Noble v. State, No. 05-23-00907-CR, 2023 WL
6532497, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 6, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem op.) (not
designated for publication); Noble v. State, No. 05-22-00797-CR, 2022 WL
3365754, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 16, 2023, no pet.) (mem op.) (not
designated for publication); Noble v. State¸ No. 05-20-00757-CR, 2020 WL
5554906, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 17, 2020, no pet.) (mem op.) (not
designated for publication); Noble v. State, No. 05-20-00033-CR, 2020 WL 477091,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 29, 2020, no pet.) (mem op.) (not designated for
publication); In re Noble, No. 05-19-00221-CV, 2019 WL 948770, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Feb. 27, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem op.); Noble v. State, No. 05-
17-01409-CR, 2017 WL 6547083, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 22, 2017, no pet.)
(mem op.) (not designated for publication); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
art. 11.07. “It is well established that only the Court of Criminal Appeals possesses
the authority to grant relief in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding where
there is a final felony conviction.” Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist.,
392 S.W.3d 115, 117–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (quoting Ex parte Alexander, 685
S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) and citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07,
§ 5); see Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991) (orig. proceeding). “Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals;
–3–
the only courts referred to are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal
Appeals.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001,
orig. proceeding).
We conclude we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss
this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
/Maricela Breedlove/
231179f.u05 MARICELA BREEDLOVE
Do Not Publish JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
REGINALD ARLEIGH NOBLE, On Appeal from the Criminal District
Appellant Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F00-50025-K.
No. 05-23-01179-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Breedlove. Justices Carlyle and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Goldstein participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for
want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered this 8th day of December, 2023.
–5–