Ruben Arturo Lara-Alvardo v. The State of Texas Appeal from 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Dismiss and Opinion Filed August 26, 2022 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00227-CR No. 05-22-00228-CR RUBEN ARTURO LARAALVARADO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F20-61117-U & F20-61118-U MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Myers Ruben Arturo Laraalvarado appeals his convictions for intoxication manslaughter and failure to stop and render aid. His appointed counsel filed a motion for new trial in each case. On May 20, 2022, the trial court adopted appellant’s proposed findings of fact and granted his motions for new trial. The State filed notices of appeal, seeking to challenge the trial court’s order. Those appeals were assigned cause numbers 05-22-00592-CR and 05-22-00593-CR and are styled The State of Texas v. Ruben Arturo Laraalvarado. On August 1, 2022, we asked the parties in these appeals how the Court had jurisdiction in light of the trial court’s order granting appellant’s motions for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9. Neither party responded. Rule 21.9 provides, “Granting a motion for new trial restores the case to its position before the former trial, including, at any party’s option, arraignment or pretrial proceedings initiated by that party.” TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9. The rule recognizes that a new trial restores the case not merely to the beginning of trial, but much earlier, to the beginning stages of the prosecution. Id. Following the grant of the motions for new trial, there are no judgments of conviction or other appealable orders left in the cases. It follows that appellant’s notices of appeal from the previous judgments of conviction are no longer effective. Under these circumstances, we conclude we have no jurisdiction to consider these appeals. See Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.); Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 643–44 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, no pet.). We dismiss these appeals. 220227f.u05 220228f.u05 Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) /Lana Myers// LANA MYERS JUSTICE –2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT RUBEN ARTURO LARAALVARADO, Appellant No. 05-22-00227-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-61117-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Carlyle and Goldstein participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. Judgment entered this 26th day of August, 2022. –3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT RUBEN ARTURO LARAALVARADO, Appellant No. 05-22-00228-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-61118-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Carlyle and Goldstein participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. Judgment entered this 26th day of August, 2022. –4–

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.