Reginald Andre Callis v. The State of Texas Appeal from 24th District Court of Jackson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-19-00408-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG REGINALD ANDRE CALLIS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina Appellant, Reginald Andre Callis, has filed a notice of appeal for “Illegal Sentence and/or Void Judgment.” Appellant was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine on June 17, 2008 in trial court cause number 08-3-7806. This Court previously issued a memorandum opinion and judgment on October 16, 2008, regarding this same cause number. 1 On August 26, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order and requested correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has responded by filing a “Motion for Inclusion into the Record the Order Denying Relief from a Fundamental Defect which Renders the Sentence Illegal and Conviction Void.” This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second appeal from appellant’s final conviction. The exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 11.07. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 (providing that “[a]fter conviction, the procedure outlined in this Act shall be exclusive and any other proceeding shall be void and of no force and effect in discharging the prisoner”); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S. W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.42.3(a), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot. JAIME TIJERINA, Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 19th day of September, 2019. 1 This Court dismissed the appeal because the trial court’s certification did not show the defendant had the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 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.
