Shaun Tyrone Stubblefield v. State
01-16-00036-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 11, 2016Background
- Appellant Shaun Tyrone Stubblefield pleaded guilty (without agreed punishment) to evading arrest or detention by motor vehicle and DWI (third offense).
- On July 17, 2015, the trial court sentenced him to four years' confinement in each case, to run concurrently.
- About five months later, appellant filed in each case a pro se "Motion Requesting a Due Process Review of Reducing His Illegal Sentence Tex. Const. Art. 1, § 29."
- The trial court denied those motions; appellant then filed pro se notices of appeal on January 4, 2016.
- The State moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, arguing no statutory basis for an appeal from the denial of the "Due Process Review" motions and that the notices of appeal were untimely.
- The Court of Appeals granted the State’s motions and dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s denial of appellant’s "Due Process Review" motions is appealable | Stubblefield sought review of his sentence via a "Due Process Review" motion and attempted to appeal denial | State: no statutory authority permits appeal from denial of such a motion; thus no jurisdiction | Court: No jurisdiction — appeals allowed only when statute authorizes them; dismissal granted |
| Whether the notices of appeal were timely to challenge the July 17, 2015 judgments | Appellant’s January 4, 2016 notices constituted appeals from the July 17, 2015 judgments | State: notices were untimely because no timely motion for new trial was filed and the 30/90-day appeal deadlines were missed | Court: Notices untimely (filed after the applicable deadlines); cannot perfect appeal; dismissal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appeals require statutory authorization)
- Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (timeliness and requirements for criminal appeals)
- Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (notice-of-appeal timeliness principles)
- Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (appeal jurisdiction and procedural prerequisites)
- Lair v. State, 321 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (application of appeal deadlines when no timely motion for new trial)