Devoris Antoine Newson v. the State of Texas
Docket 08-25-00331-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
- 08-25-00331-CR
Appeal from a trial court's verbal denial of a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus
Summary
The court dismissed Devoris Antoine Newson’s attempted appeal from the trial court’s verbal denial of his pretrial habeas application for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court explained that an oral pronouncement is not appealable absent a signed written order, and the record contained no written ruling. The court also noted the underlying criminal charge was dismissed after Newson filed his habeas application, rendering the habeas petition moot. Because there was no appealable written order and the case was dismissed, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal and any pending motions as moot.
Issues Decided
- Whether an oral pronouncement by the trial court denying a pretrial habeas application is appealable without a signed written order
- Whether the habeas application is moot where the underlying criminal charge was dismissed and the applicant was released
- Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal when no written order appears in the record
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on binding authority that oral rulings are not appealable until reduced to a signed written order, so no written order meant no appellate jurisdiction. The record showed the State moved to dismiss the underlying charge after the habeas filing, making the pretrial habeas petition moot because the applicant was released. Those two facts — absence of a written order and dismissal of the underlying case — compelled dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sonavongxay407 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)
- State v. Wachtendorf475 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015)
- 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
- Judge
- Soto
- Judge
- Benavides (Senior Judge)
Key Dates
- Habeas application filed
- 2025-11-07
- Show cause order issued
- 2026-03-06
- Show cause response deadline
- 2026-03-26
- Opinion date
- 2026-04-24
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Obtain a signed written order
If the trial court issued a ruling on the habeas application, request the court clerk to enter a signed written order; an appeal requires a written order to invoke appellate jurisdiction.
- 2
Consult criminal defense counsel
Speak with an attorney to confirm the status of the underlying charge after dismissal and evaluate any remaining remedies or motions available in the trial court.
- 3
Consider procedural posture before further appeal
If new or different relief is sought, ensure any submissions create a final, appealable order and timely preserve issues for appeal per appellate rules.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court dismissed Newson’s appeal because there was no signed written order from the trial court to appeal and the underlying criminal charge was dismissed, making the habeas petition moot.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The decision directly affects appellant Devoris Antoine Newson and resolves that his attempted appeal cannot proceed in this court for lack of jurisdiction.
- What does it mean that the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction?
- It means the appellate court concluded it lacked the legal authority to hear the appeal because the prerequisites for appeal (a written order and a live controversy) were not met.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Because the dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction and the underlying charge was dismissed, there is no interlocutory ruling here to pursue; options are limited and would require showing a final, appealable order exists.
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. 08-25-00331-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. 20240D04878
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