DISMISSED and Opinion Filed December 30, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-01007-CR

YAT HO WONG, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-82725-2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Goldstein, and Smith

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III

Before the Court is appellant Yat Ho Wong’s October 12, 2022 motion to 

dismiss this appeal. We deny appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal on other 

grounds.

On September 23, 2022, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal giving notice 

of his intent “to appeal the conviction dated the 15th day of September, 2022.” The 

notice of appeal lists three cases. Two of the three cases referenced, cause nos. 05-

22-01005-CR and 05-22-01006-CR, arise from the 219th Judicial District Court. The 

case currently before the Court, cause no. 05-22-01007-CR, arises from Collin 
–2–

County Court at Law No. 6. The Court has dismissed the appeal in cause no. 05-22-

01005-CR. See Wong v. State, No. 05-22-01005-CR, 2022 WL 17175012, at *2 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 23, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication).

In the motion to dismiss pending before this Court, appellant’s counsel relates 

that he was appointed to represent appellant after appellant filed his pro se notice of 

appeal. Counsel states appellant was convicted in cause no. 05-22-01006-CR on 

September 15, 2022 and he will continue to appeal that cause. Counsel states the 

trial court dismissed cause no. 05-22-01007-CR by order entered on February 9, 

2022, and appellant will not be appealing the order of dismissal. Both counsel and 

appellant signed the motion to dismiss. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a) (requiring both 

appellant and counsel to sign motion to dismiss appeal). Appellant, however, 

included beside his signature the words “under duress.”

In the absence of evidence shedding light on the voluntariness of appellant’s 

signature, we conclude we cannot grant a voluntary dismissal when the appellant 

signs the motion to dismiss with a notation that he signed under duress. See id.; 

Connors v. State, 966 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. 

ref’d) (explaining apparent purpose of rule 42.2(a) signature requirement to protect 

defendant from having appeal dismissed by counsel without defendant’s consent and 

to provide counsel with notice so counsel can advise defendant about dismissal).

Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss.
–3–

Although we cannot grant appellant’s motion to dismiss, we conclude 

dismissal is proper. The Court did not receive any documents from the trial court 

clerk regarding cause no. 05-22-01007-CR. However, a review of the trial court’s 

online docket sheet and records, publicly available via Collin County’s official 

website, shows, as counsel has represented, that the trial court dismissed cause no. 

05-22-01007-CR on February 9, 2022. See In re Johnson, 599 S.W.3d 311, 311 & 

n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, orig. proceeding) (appellate court may take judicial 

notice of publicly-available online court records in determining its jurisdiction). 

Thus, there is no September 15, 2022 conviction to appeal in this case.

Furthermore, appellant may not appeal the February 9, 2022 dismissal order. 

A defendant may appeal only from judgments and appealable orders. See TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02; TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). A dismissal order is not an 

appealable order. See Bohannon v. State, 352 S.W.3d 47, 48 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2011, pet. ref’d) (order dismissing charging instrument is not appealable order for 

defendant under rule 25.2(a)(2)); Petty v. State, 800 S.W.2d 582, 583–84 (Tex. 

App.—Tyler 1990, no pet.) (per curiam) (dismissal of indictment is not appealable 

order).

Moreover, even if appellant could appeal the dismissal order, his notice of 

appeal would be untimely. A defendant perfects an appeal by filing with the trial 

court clerk, within thirty days after the date sentence was imposed or the trial court 

enters an appealable order, or within ninety days after sentencing if the defendant 
–4–

timely filed a motion for new trial, a written notice of appeal showing his desire to 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b–c), 26.2(a). A timely filed notice of appeal is 

required to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In the absence of a timely filed notice of appeal, we must 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Id.

Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed September 23, 2022, is untimely and would 

not trigger this Court’s jurisdiction to review an order signed on February 9, 2022. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a).

Because there is no September 15, 2022 conviction to appeal in this case, the

trial court’s order dismissing this case is not an appealable order, and the notice of 

appeal is untimely even if the dismissal order was appealable, we dismiss cause no. 

05-22-01007-CR for want of jurisdiction.

221007f.u05

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

/Bill Pedersen, III//

BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
–5–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

YAT HO WONG, Appellant

No. 05-22-01007-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 6, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-82725-

2020.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Pedersen, III. Justices Goldstein and 

Smith participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for 

want of jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered this 30th day of December, 2022.