Luis Felipe Fierro v. The State of Texas Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued March 6, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00906-CR ——————————— LUIS FELIPE FIERRO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1302306 MEMORANDUM OPINION This Court’s October 26, 2017 Memorandum Order of Abatement had granted the parties’ joint motion to abate this appeal and remanded to allow appellant, Luis Felipe Fierro, to file a counseled out-of-time motion for new trial. On November 20, 2017, appellant filed a motion for new trial, which was granted on January 8, 2018. On January 18, 2018, appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as moot after the trial court granted his motion for new trial. On February 26, 2018, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed in this Court which included a certified copy of the trial court’s January 8, 2018 order granting the motion for new trial. The granting of a motion for new trial restores the case to its position before the former trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b). This appeal was rendered moot by the trial court’s January 8, 2018 order granting a new trial. See id. Because there is no longer an appealable judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. See Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 643–44 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction after motion for new trial granted because no sentence to be appealed); TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b). Accordingly, we reinstate this case, grant appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, and dismiss the appeal as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Massengale, and Lloyd. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 2

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.