Court Opinion

ID: 9411606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 08:11:50.059275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:31.676126
License: Public Domain

In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                        Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                        No. 07-23-00237-CR

                        BRANDON DEAN SAUNDERS, APPELLANT

                                                  V.

                              THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                            On Appeal from the 198th District Court
                                   Bandera County, Texas
           Trial Court No. CR-XX-XXXXXXX, Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III, Presiding

                                           July 25, 2023
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION
                     Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       On May 16, 2023, Appellant, Brandon Dean Saunders, was found guilty of

possession of a controlled substance. He has not yet been sentenced. On May 30, 2023,

Appellant filed a notice of appeal, pro se.1 Because no pronouncement of sentence or

appealable order has been entered by the trial court, we have no jurisdiction over the

       1 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
appeal.2 See Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 287, 289–90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003),

(holding that there is no “conviction” to appeal before a sentence is rendered); Debnam

v. State, No. 04-21-00297-CR, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 517, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio Jan. 26, 2022, no pet. h.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(dismissing premature appeal, where sentencing had yet to occur, for want of jurisdiction).

        Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                Per Curiam

Do not publish.

        2 Questioning our jurisdiction, we directed Appellant to show grounds for continuing the appeal.

Appellant did not file a response.

                                                   2