DISMISSED and Opinion Filed May 9, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-01044-CR 

EX PARTE JUSTIN LEE PARKER 

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. WX21-92818-Q 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Goldstein 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

Justin Lee Parker appeals a Dallas County magistrate’s adverse decision on 

his application for writ of habeas corpus challenging his extradition to the State of 

Alabama. Concluding we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. 

The trial court may refer to a magistrate a habeas proceeding challenging an 

extradition. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 54.306(a)(8); Ex parte Allen, 699 S.W.2d 

886, 888 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no pet.). After a referral, the magistrate acts as 

the agent of the trial court. See Kelly v. State, 676 S.W.2d 104, 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1984). The magistrate’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations are not legally 

binding until they are adopted by the referring court. See id.
 –2– 

The record in this appeal shows a magistrate conducted a hearing on 

appellant’s writ application on November 9, 2021. The Governor’s warrant 

authorizing appellant’s extradition was admitted into evidence. Although the 

magistrate orally denied relief on the writ application and made a docket entry 

reflecting the decision, nothing in the record shows the magistrate prepared findings 

and recommendations for the trial court to approve or entered any written orders. 

The record does not show the trial court signed a written order approving the 

magistrate’s oral determination to deny relief on appellant’s writ application. 

A habeas applicant may file a notice of appeal to challenge an adverse 

decision on an application for writ of habeas corpus after the trial court enters a 

written, appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), 26.2(a), 31; Rodarte v. 

State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (defendant’s timetable for filing 

notice of appeal from adverse habeas decision begins when appealable order signed); 

see also Henderson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 735, 735–36 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no 

pet.) (defendant may appeal only final judgment or appealable order). A docket entry 

is not an appealable order and does not confer jurisdiction for appellate review. See 

State v. Shaw, 4 S.W.3d 875, 878 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999, no pet.). 

Without an appealable order signed by the trial court, this Court has no 

jurisdiction over the appeal. Ex parte Galindo, 338 S.W.2d 954, 955 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1960); see also State v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2012) (concluding court of appeals has no jurisdiction over State’s appeal until there 
 –3– 

is signed written order); State ex rel. Sutton v. Bage, 822 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (determining trial court has not entered order 

justifying appeal until written order is signed); Ex parte Maldonado, No. 11-19-

00019-CR, 2019 WL 614293, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Feb. 14, 2019, no pet.) 

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (appellate court’s jurisdiction in 

extradition proceedings limited to considering appeal from denial of relief on 

application for writ of habeas corpus). 

Moreover, even if the trial court signs a written order approving the 

magistrate’s actions and denying relief on appellant’s application for writ of habeas 

corpus, appellant’s complaint is moot. Appellant contends he should be discharged 

because he was held under a fugitive warrant for more than the ninety days allowed 

by statute. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 51.05, 51.07 (providing for up to 

ninety days of detention under a fugitive warrant and requiring discharge of fugitive 

not arrested under Governor’s warrant before ninety days expires). 

The State concedes appellant was held more than 90 days in violation of 

article 51.05. However, the Governor’s warrant was admitted into evidence during 

the magistrate’s hearing. The issuance of the Governor’s warrant renders moot any 

complaints about confinement under a fugitive warrant. See Ex parte Worden, 502 

S.W.2d 803, 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Ex parte Parra, 527 S.W.3d 681, 685 

(Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.); see also Ex parte Thomas, No. 05-02-00517-

CR, 2002 WL 862554, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 7, 2002, pet. ref’d) (not 
 –4– 

designated for publication) (issuance of Governor’s warrant renders moot any 

complaint arising from confinement under fugitive warrant including detention in 

excess of statutory period). Thus, even if appellant was able to obtain a written order 

and establish jurisdiction, this matter is moot. See Worden, 502 S.W.2d at 804. 

Finding no basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal. 

 

Do Not Publish 

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

211044F.U05 

 

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

EX PARTE JUSTIN LEE PARKER 

No. 05-21-01044-CR 

 On Appeal from the 204th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. WX21-92818-

Q. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek. Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Goldstein participating. 

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

Judgment entered May 9, 2022