Regino Quinones v. The State of Texas Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-20-00485-CR Regino QUIÑONES, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CR13882 Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 25, 2020 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant Regino Quiñones filed a notice of appeal asserting that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the cause for violations of his right to a speedy trial. Appellant’s notice of appeal states that “[t]he appealable [o]rder by the trial court was signed on September 04, 2020.” The clerk’s record contains Appellant’s Second Demand for Speedy Trial and Demand for Dismissal for Failure to Provide a Speedy Trial. In the upper right-hand corner of the first page are handwritten notes that include “4 Sep 2020” and brief notes which could have been made by 04-20-00485-CR the presiding judge of the trial court. However, there is no written, signed order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss. As this court has repeatedly held, “the judge’s notes are for his or her own convenience and form no part of the record.” State v. Fuller, No. 04-96-00898-CR, 1997 WL 136541, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 26, 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); accord In re L.H., No. 04-1300174-CV, 2013 WL 3804585, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 17, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (“A judge’s handwritten notes are for his or her own convenience and form no part of the record.”); In re A.W., 384 S.W.3d 872, 873 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.) (citing Fuller, 1997 WL 136541, at *1). Because the appellate record did not appear to contain an appealable order, on October 29, 2020, we ordered Appellant to show cause in writing by November 9, 2020, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Fuller, 1997 WL 136541, at *1. We warned Appellant that if he did not timely provide written proof as ordered, this appeal would be dismissed. See id. To date, Appellant has not filed a response. The clerk’s record does not contain an appealable judgment or order, and Appellant did not file any response to show how this court has jurisdiction in this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Do Not Publish -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.
