Opinion

Edward Torres v. State

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Filed
Jun 26, 1991
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 35.7%

The opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN

NO. 3-91-012-CR

EDWARD TORRES,

APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF COMAL COUNTY,

NO. 90-CR-615, HONORABLE FRED CLARK, JUDGE

PER CURIAM

Edward Torres seeks to appeal an order of the trial court

granting the State a new trial. A motion to dismiss the appeal has

been filed by the State. The State has also filed a "motion to

reverse and remand" confessing error below.

This cause has a singular history. On July 9, 1990, an

information was filed accusing Edward Torres of evading arrest.

Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.04 (Supp. 1991). The cause was called for

trial on September 5, the Honorable Ronald J. Prichard, presiding.

Although Torres entered a plea of guilty to this misdemeanor

offense, the judge, after a brief conversation with Torres,

dismissed the cause on his own motion due to insufficient evidence.

A written order of dismissal was signed September 11.

On September 13, the State filed a "motion to reconsider"

the dismissal order. The State also filed a notice of appeal to

this Court, Tex. Code Cr. P. Ann. art. 44.01 (Supp. 1991), but this

appeal was not pursued. On September 26, Judge Prichard rendered

an order granting the State a new trial.

On October 9, Torres filed a "motion to set aside order

for a new trial." A hearing on the motion, now before Judge Fred

Clark, was held on October 30. The judge concluded that the court

had erred in ordering the cause dismissed, but that the court had

plenary power for thirty days to set aside the order. Therefore,

Torres's "motion to set aside order for new trial" was overruled.

Meanwhile, on October 25, Torres filed his notice of appeal from

the order granting the State a new trial.

A new trial may be granted in a criminal case only on the

timely motion of the defendant. Zaragosa v. State, 588 S.W.2d 322

(Tex. Cr. App. 1979); Richards v. State, 718 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. App.

1986, no pet.). Moreover, when a trial court empowered with

jurisdiction over a criminal case dismisses the indictment or

information, the person accused thereunder is, in law, discharged

from the accusation against him; accordingly, no jurisdiction

remains in the trial court. Garcia v. Dial, 596 S.W.2d 524 (Tex.

Cr. App. 1980). This is true even where the order of dismissal is

based on an erroneous interpretation of law. Id . (1) Texas R. Civ.

P. Ann. 329b(d) (Supp. 1991), granting trial courts plenary power

to grant a new trial within thirty days after judgment, is

inapplicable in criminal cases. State ex rel. Cobb v. Godfrey, 739

S.W.2d 47 (Tex. Cr. App. 1987). Therefore, we conclude that the

trial court was without authority to grant the State's "motion to

reconsider" the dismissal order.

Torres has no right to appeal from the trial court's

interlocutory order reinstating the cause against him. Garcia v.

Dial, supra . Accordingly, the State's motion to dismiss appeal is

granted. The State's motion to reverse and remand is dismissed

but, in light of its confession of error, this Court is confident

that the State will move to dismiss this cause in the county court.

Should the State seek to pursue this prosecution, Torres is

entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the judge of the trial

court to set aside the order granting a new trial rendered

September 26, 1990, and to dismiss Comal County cause number

90-CR-615. Id .

The appeal is dismissed.

[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and B. A. Smith]

Dismissed

Filed: June 26, 1991

[Do Not Publish]

1. Garcia was decided before the State was given the right to

appeal from orders of dismissal. Art. 44.01, supra . However, the

basic principle remains sound. The trial court's jurisdiction may

be restored if, on appeal, the dismissal order is overruled.

As to the validity of the sua sponte order dismissing the

cause, see State v. Morales, 804 S.W.2d 331 (Tex. App. 1991, no

pet.); State v. Shelton, 802 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. App. 1990, pet.

granted); State v. Gray, 801 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. App. 1990, no pet.).

See also Brown v. State, 507 S.W.2d 235, 238 (Tex. Cr. App. 1974).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.