In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-13-00438-CR 

CECIL R. MCDONALD, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 364th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2000-434,614, Honorable Bradley S. Underwood, Presiding 

 

January 17, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, Cecil R. McDonald a/k/a Cecil Trimble, has filed Notice of Appeal in 

this Court again seeking to appeal from his conviction for murder in trial court cause 

number 2000-434,614. In his notice of appeal, he maintains that his appellate counsel 

was ineffective for failing to raise certain issues in appellant’s appeal from his 

conviction. Having reviewed our own records, we see that a direct appeal of appellant’s

conviction was disposed of on its merits by this Court by our opinion of August 29, 2007,
2

in which we affirmed his conviction.1 See McDonald v. State, No. 07-06-00276-CR, 

2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7139 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 29, 2007, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication).2 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused 

McDonald’s petition for discretionary review. See In re Trimble, No. PD-1435-07, 2008 

Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 45 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 16, 2008) (decision without published 

opinion). Subsequently, our mandate issued May 15, 2008. This Court’s plenary power 

expired sixty days after judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1(a).

Despite having received appellate review of his conviction, appellant has 

continued to urge ineffective assistance of counsel and has continued to seek additional 

review of this same conviction. In December 2011, he attempted to perfect another 

appeal from his conviction. See McDonald v. State, No. 07-11-00491-CR, 2011 Tex. 

App. LEXIS 9941 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 16, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication). By our opinion in that case, we dismissed his appeal, 

having concluded that we were without jurisdiction over it. See id. Appellant persisted 

and, one year later, in December 2012, attempted to file another notice of appeal, this 

time by way of his “Application for a Certificate of Appealability.” See McDonald v. 

State, No. 07-12-00512-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10190 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 7, 

2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We again concluded that we 

 

1

The issues raised in appellant’s direct appeal include the factual sufficiency of the evidence and 

the trial court’s admission of extraneous bad acts. Appellant’s instant notice of appeal indicates that 

these issues were not raised by appellate counsel.

2

Because McDonald’s first notice of appeal from his 2001 conviction was untimely, we had to 

dismiss his original appeal on that basis. See Trimble v. State, No. 07-02-00101-CR, 2002 Tex. App. 

LEXIS 1656 (Tex. App.—Amarillo March 4, 2002, no pet.) (per curiam). The Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals granted McDonald an out-of-time appeal. See Ex parte McDonald, No. AP-75,435, 2006 Tex. 

Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 723 (Tex. Crim. App. June 14, 2006) (per curiam) (not designated for 

publication). 
3

were without jurisdiction over the appeal and, accordingly, dismissed it. See id. Then, 

in April 2013, appellant attempted to file another notice of appeal, this time entitled 

“Direct Appeal.” See McDonald v. State, 401 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013, 

pet. ref’d). Again, we dismissed his appeal on the basis that we were without 

jurisdiction over it. See id. at 363. Further, by this most recent opinion, we directed 

appellant “to refrain from filing additional direct appeals from trial court cause number 

2000-434,614.” Id. Though each of appellant’s pro se submissions to this Court has 

been labeled differently, the substance of appellant’s submissions has been the same: 

he alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his conviction in trial 

court cause number 2000-434,614. In the instant appeal, we reiterate our conclusion 

that we are without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal from the same 2001 conviction 

and, accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.

43.2(f); see also Coleman v. State, No. 03-11-00648-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9653, 

at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 8, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (observing that an appellant is not entitled to a second appeal from the 

same conviction).

In response to appellant’s multiple attempts to file subsequent appeals from the 

same 2001 judgment of conviction in trial court cause number 2000-434,612, one which 

has already been the subject of a direct appeal and petition for discretionary review, we 

admonish appellant against filing another notice of appeal in this Court in which he 

lodges a direct, substantive attack against the trial court’s judgment of conviction in 

2000-434,612. Based on our repeated disposition of his attempted subsequent 

appeals, appellant’s persistence suggests that he does not genuinely pursue appellate 
4

review of his conviction—he has received such—and that he, instead, has engaged in 

bad faith abuse of the judicial process by repeatedly seeking a remedy to which he is 

not entitled.

Pursuant to this Court’s inherent power to control its docket, we hereby direct 

appellant to refrain from filing additional direct appeals from trial court cause number 

2000-434,612. See Brager v. State, No. 0365-03, 2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2203, at 

*5 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 13, 2004) (en banc) (not designated for publication); see also

TEX. R. APP. P. 43.6. Having concluded, as we have on three earlier occasions, that we 

lack jurisdiction over this matter, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See 

Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam).

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish.