Shawn L. Dunn v. The State of Texas Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-20-00223-CR SHAWN DUNN, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 52nd District Court1 Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. FR-10-20260, Honorable Trent D. Farrell, Presiding November 10, 2020 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, Shawn Dunn, appearing pro se, seeks to appeal the trial court’s order denying his post-conviction “Motion of Frivolous Claim.” We dismiss the purported appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1 Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). In 2012, the Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery. Dunn v. State, No. 10-11-00047-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2262, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 21, 2012, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The Court of Criminal Appeals later refused Appellant’s petition for discretionary review and his conviction became final. In February 2020, Appellant filed a “Motion of Frivolous Claim,” asserting that his conviction and sentence were “unreasonable and without foundation.” The trial court denied Appellant’s request for a hearing and denied the motion. This appeal followed. Generally, an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant only from a judgment of conviction or where appellate jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We have found no authority granting this Court jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order denying a post-conviction motion that challenges the merits of a conviction. See Carter v. State, No. 07-14-00296-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3584, at *3 (Tex. App.— Amarillo Apr. 10, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (finding no authority to review the denial of a post-conviction motion seeking to set aside a final conviction). Rather, only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters seeking post-conviction relief from a final felony conviction. See TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015) (outlining the procedures for an application for writ of habeas corpus); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). By letter of September 18, 2020, we directed Appellant to show how we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Although Appellant filed a response, he did not demonstrate grounds for continuing the appeal. 2 Because the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s “Motion of Frivolous Claim” is not a judgment of conviction or an appealable order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Per Curiam Do not publish. 3
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.
