Devoris Antoine Newson v. the State of Texas
Docket 08-25-00330-CR
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Habeas Corpus
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 08-25-00330-CR
Appeal from an appellant's attempted appeal of the trial court’s oral denial of a pretrial writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case
Summary
The court dismissed Devoris Antoine Newson’s attempted appeal from the trial court’s verbal denial of his pretrial habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court found no written order ruling on the habeas application in the record, and Texas law requires a written order to invoke appellate jurisdiction in habeas matters. The court also noted the underlying criminal charge was dismissed after Newson filed his habeas application, rendering the pretrial habeas petition moot. Because Newson did not show cause why the appeal should proceed, the court dismissed the appeal and any pending motions as moot.
Issues Decided
- Whether an appeal may be taken from a trial court’s oral pronouncement denying a pretrial habeas writ when no written order exists
- Whether a pretrial habeas application becomes moot after the underlying criminal charge is dismissed
- Whether a criminal defendant may appeal a trial court’s dismissal of a charge against him
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on established Texas precedent that oral pronouncements by a trial court are not appealable until reduced to a written order, so no appeal can be perfected without a signed written order. The record contained no written ruling on Newson’s habeas application. Additionally, because the underlying criminal case was dismissed after the habeas filing, the habeas petition was moot. Finally, even if the notice could be read as appealing the dismissal, defendants generally may not appeal a trial court’s dismissal of charges.
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte PerezNo. 14-13-01048-CR, 2014 WL 4416011 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 9, 2014)
- State v. Sonavongxay407 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)
- Ex parte DavisNo. 12-20-00141-CR, 2020 WL 6164465 (Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 21, 2020)
Parties
- Appellant
- Devoris Antoine Newson
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- Gina M. Palafox, Justice
- Judge
- Soto, J.
- Judge
- Benavides, J. (Senior Judge)
Key Dates
- Habeas application filed
- 2025-11-07
- Order to show cause issued
- 2026-03-06
- Return deadline to show cause
- 2026-03-26
- Opinion issued
- 2026-04-24
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Confirm existence of written order
If Newson or his counsel believes a written order was entered, they should obtain and file the signed order in the appellate court or move to supplement the record immediately.
- 2
Seek trial-court entry if needed
If the trial court has not entered a written ruling and appellate review is still desired, request the trial court to issue a written order clarifying its ruling so an appeal can be properly taken.
- 3
Evaluate mootness and other relief
Since the charge was dismissed, consult counsel to determine whether any collateral relief or motions are appropriate, and whether any other claims remain viable.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court dismissed Newson’s attempted appeal because there was no written trial-court order to appeal and the underlying charge had been dismissed, making the habeas petition moot.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Devoris Newson is directly affected; the dismissal means the appellate court will not review the alleged oral denial of his habeas petition.
- What happens next for Newson?
- Because the underlying charge was dismissed, there may be no further relief to seek on that charge; if Newson believes a written order exists or other jurisdictional defects, he could pursue available post-judgment remedies or ask the trial court to enter a written order.
- Why did the court say the appeal lacked jurisdiction?
- Texas law requires a signed written order to appeal a trial court’s ruling in habeas proceedings; an oral ruling alone does not support an appeal.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Because the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and the underlying charge was dismissed, there is likely nothing to appeal; any further review would depend on whether a proper written order exists or other exceptional grounds.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
————————————
No. 08-25-00330-CR
————————————
Devoris Antoine Newson, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
On Appeal from the 346th District Court
El Paso County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20240D01345
M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N
Appellant, Devoris Antoine Newson, filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus
on November 7, 2025. Subsequently, Newson filed a notice of appeal stating that he was appealing
“the trial court’s verbal denial of [his] 17.151 Pretrial writ . . ..” We dismiss this attempted appeal
for want of jurisdiction.
In a habeas proceeding, “a trial court’s oral pronouncement is not appealable until a written
order is signed.” Ex parte Perez, No. 14-13-01048-CR, 2014 WL 4416011, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 9, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication);
see State v. Sonavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 258–59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (holding that a notice
of appeal invokes the appellate court’s jurisdiction “over all parties to the trial court’s judgment or
order appealed from,” that an order must be in writing, and that with no written order from which
to appeal, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction); State v. Wachtendorf, 475 S.W.3d 895, 904
(Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (“It is true, of course, that the trial court’s oral pronouncements on the
record do not constitute appealable orders.”). A written order is a prerequisite to invoking this
Court’s jurisdiction in a habeas proceeding. See Perez, 2014 WL 4416011, at *1; State v. Nassour,
706 S.W.3d 627, 633 (Tex. App.—Austin 2024, pet. dism’d) (per curiam); Ex parte Wiley, 949
S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no writ). The record in this case does not, however,
contain a written order by the trial court ruling on Newson’s pretrial application for writ of habeas
corpus.
Moreover, a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus is rendered moot when the
offense for which the applicant was being held is dismissed and the applicant is released from
confinement on the charge. See Ex parte Davis, No. 12-20-00141-CR, 2020 WL 6164465, at *1–
2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 21, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ex parte
Huerta, 582 S.W.3d 407, 410–11 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2018, pet. ref’d). Here, the record shows
that the trial court, on the State’s motion and after Newson filed his habeas application, dismissed
the underlying case against Newson.
Finally, to the extent we could construe Newson’s notice of appeal as an attempt to appeal
from the underlying criminal case, “[a] criminal defendant is not permitted to appeal a trial court’s
2
order dismissing a charge against him.” Kozitzki v. State, No. 04-23-00511-CR, 2023 WL 3856707,
at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 7, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(per curiam) (citing Bohannon v. State, 352 S.W.3d 47, 48 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet.
ref’d); Petty v. State, 800 S.W.2d 582, 583–84 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1990, no pet.) (per curiam)).
Because no written order appears in the record and because the trial court dismissed the
underlying criminal case against Newson, we issued an order on March 6, 2026, requiring Newson
to show cause in writing by March 26, 2026, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. Newson has not filed a response showing that this Court has jurisdiction over this
appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending
motions as moot.
GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice
April 24, 2026
Before Palafox and Soto, JJ., Benavides, J. (Senior Judge)
Benavides, J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment
(Do Not Publish)
3