Erik Santana Guanche v. State, 01-15-00904-CR

Appellant Erik Santana Guanche was charged with misdemeanor DWI and pled guilty under a 2013 plea agreement; the trial court sentenced him July 2, 2013.
Guanche filed a verified motion to recuse the trial judge; the judge declined and the Presiding Judge denied the recusal. Guanche appealed that denial.
This Court affirmed the trial court on December 16, 2014, and issued its mandate June 5, 2015, making the judgment final.
After the mandate, the Harris County District Clerk issued an administrative "Court Directive: General Information/Recall" stating "MANDATE OF AFFIRMANCE, SENTENCE IS SATISFIED."
Guanche then filed a motion for new trial and a supplemented motion complaining that the directive denied him a recusal hearing; the trial court later denied the supplemented motion.
Guanche appealed the directive/denial; the Court of Appeals considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction over an appeal from the district clerk's post-mandate administrative directive	Guanche contends the directive and post-mandate actions deprived him of a recusal hearing and therefore are appealable	The State (and court) contend the directive did not alter the final judgment and created no new appealable order	Dismissed for want of jurisdiction; the directive is not an appealable order
Whether the trial court's denial of the supplemented motion for new trial (post-mandate) is appealable	Guanche treats the trial court's post-mandate denial as an appealable order	The State argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act after the appellate mandate issued	Denial is not appealable because trial court lacked jurisdiction after mandate; no final order to appeal

Sellers v. State, 790 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appeal permitted only from final judgment)
Henderson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.—Dallas) (post-mandate clerical acts that do not change judgment are not appealable)
State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court has only limited jurisdiction after mandate issues)
Ex parte Baltimore, 616 S.W.2d 205 (Tex. Crim. App.) (mandate of affirmance triggers ministerial acts and does not restore general jurisdiction)
Turner v. State, 733 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate court may judicially notice its own records)
Fowler v. State, 803 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi) (motion for new trial filed after opinion but before mandate is untimely)
Martin v. State, 77 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. App.—Amarillo) (appeal dismissed where no final, appealable judgment or order exists)