## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________
No. 02

- 19

- 00446

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Co urt No. 1511886D

Before Bassel , Womack , and Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### R OBERT 

### D ARRE N 

### D UVALL 

### , Appellant

V



### .
T HE 

### S T ATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Robert Darren D uvall, appearing pro se, pleaded guilty in July 2 018

to violating a protective order. Duvall appears to attempt to appeal from the trial

court ’ s denial of his “ M otion T o R everse F inal J udgment ” b ased u pon n ew e vidence

and his “ Petition T o R e verse Final Judgment. ” These motions , which Duvall filed in
June 2019 , appea r to attack his 2018 conviction and constit ute untimely motions f or

new tr ial

.
On Dec e m b er 10, 2019, we sent Duvall a letter explai ning our concern that we
lack jurisdicti on over his appeal because the trial court ’ s ord er d oes not appear to be

a n appealable order

. We further expl ained that
[w] e generally have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in a criminal case

o nly fr om a judgment of conviction. S ee Mc Kown v. State , 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). Article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure is the exclusive means for challenging a final felony conviction, and this court has no juri sdiction over matters relating to pos tconv iction applications under article 11.07. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. C ourt of Appeals , 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

We stated that unless any party desiring to c ontinue the appe a l file d on or before Dec e mber
20, 2019, a response showing gr o unds for continuing th is appeal, we could dismiss it for
want of juris diction. See Tex. R. App. P. 4 3.2(f), 44.3. Duvall filed a resp onse , but it does
not show grounds for continuing the appe al. 1

1 On January 16, 2020, Duvall filed a motion for exten sion of time to respond
to our jurisdiction letter. We deny that motion as moot.3 Because we have no jurisdiction over this appeal from the trial court ’ s denial of

Duvall ’ s untimely motions that are in the nature of a motion for new trial , we dismiss
this appeal for want of juri sdiction

. 2 See Tex. R. App. P. 43 .2(f), 44.3.

Per Cu r iam

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: January 23, 2020

2 The tria l court likewise lacked jurisd iction t o entertain Duvall ’ s “ M otion T o R everse F inal J udgment ” b ased u pon n ew e vidence and his “ Petition T o R e verse Final Judgment. ” Article 40.001 of the Texas C ode of C riminal P rocedure provides that motions for new trial shall be granted when material eviden c e favorable to the accused surfaces after trial. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 40.00 1

. However, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 1.4 re quires that a motion for new trial be filed no later than thirty days after the dat e the trial court imposes or su s pends sentence in open
court. Tex. R. App. P. 21.4. Thus, even motions based on newly discovered material evidence must be filed with in thi rty days of the trial court ’ s imposition or suspension of sentence in open court. See Williams v. S t ate , No s . 0 2

- 1 7

- 00249

- CR , 02

- 17

- 00 250

- CR, 02

- 17

- 00251

- C R, 2017 WL 4819417, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Oct . 26, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not des ignate d for publication) (per curiam) (collecting

cas es). A trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on an out

- of

- time mo t ion for new trial. Id. (citing State ex rel. Holmes v. Third Court of Appeals of Tex. , 860 S.W.2d 873, 876 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)
, and Beathard v. State
, 767 S.W.2d 423, 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989 ) ). The trial court therefore had no jur isdiction to r ule on Duvall ’ s motions that were in the nature of late

- filed motions for new trial. See id.