Court Opinion

ID: 9393753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 08:10:25.877622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:55.197939
License: Public Domain

In The
                              Court of Appeals
                     Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                   No. 07-22-00195-CR

                         THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT

                                            V.

                            DANIEL CASTILLO, APPELLEE

                          On Appeal from the 274th District Court
                                   Hays County, Texas
           Trial Court No. CR-22-1417-D, Honorable William R. Henry, Presiding

                                      May 9, 2023
                 ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                  ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND

                 Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

      The State of Texas appeals from the trial court’s purported order dismissing Count

I of a two-count indictment against Appellee, Daniel Castillo. Finding that the trial court

has not entered a final, appealable order, we dismissed the premature appeal for want of

jurisdiction. Now pending before this Court is the State’s motion for rehearing. We grant

the motion, reinstate the appeal, and remand the cause to the trial court for further

proceedings.
       In its motion for rehearing, the State argues that the trial court’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law signed on May 27, 2022, is an appealable order. However, the Third

Court of Appeals, from which this case was transferred, has held that findings of fact and

conclusions of law do not constitute final, appealable orders. See In re Alejandro-Najarro,

No. 03-21-00682-CR, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 3099, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin May 10,

2022, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“Although the trial

court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law on that date, such a document is

not a final appealable order.”); see also State v. Ortiz, No. 07-10-00233-CR, 2010 Tex.

App. LEXIS 9796, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 10, 2010, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem.

op., not designated for publication) (“We conclude the document containing findings of

fact and conclusions of law does not constitute a signed written order . . .”); but see State

v. Janssen, 592 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2019, pet. ref’d) (holding the

opposite). When confronted with the premature appeal in In re Alejandro-Najarro, the

Third Court remanded the appeal to the trial court for entry of a written order. 2022 Tex.

App. LEXIS 3099, at *2–3.           Following the precedent of the Third Court of Appeals, we

shall do the same here. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3 (requiring a transferee court to apply

the precedent of the transferor court if there is a conflict).

       Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion for rehearing,1 reinstate the appeal and

remand the cause to the trial court for entry of a signed order on Appellee’s motion to

dismiss the indictment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.2 (providing that appellate courts may

allow an appealed order that is not final to be modified so as to be made final and may

allow the modified order and all proceedings relating to it to be included in a supplemental

       1   Although we requested a response to the motion for rehearing from Appellee, he did not file one.
                                                     2
record), 44.4(b) (requiring appellate courts to direct trial courts to correct remediable

errors that prevent proper presentation of an appeal), 49.3. A supplemental clerk’s record

containing the written order shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before June 8,

2023. If a final, appealable order is not received by this date, the appeal will be reinstated

and dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

       It is so ordered.

                                                         Per Curiam

Do not publish.

                                              3