Court Opinion

ID: 9404118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 07:10:32.887692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:11.606194
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                   EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                        EL PASO, TEXAS

    ROBERTO JUAN BOTELLO,                              §                 No. 08-23-00114-CR

                                  Appellant,           §                    Appeal from the

    v.                                                 §             226th Judicial District Court

    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                §                of Bexar County, Texas

                                  Appellee.            §                  (TC# 2021CR8821)

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

         Appellant Roberto Juan Botello appealed from the trial court’s judgment of February 16,

2023, adjudicating him guilty of the offense of possession of child pornography and imposing a

sentence of six years confinement. 1 The trial court’s judgment followed Appellant’s plea of true

to the State’s amended revocation motion. On March 20, 2023, Appellant filed a notice of appeal

challenging said judgment. On that same date, he also filed with the trial court a motion for new

trial and motion to reform the sentence contained in the judgment. The trial court granted

Appellant’s motion for new trial on April 21, 2023. In the meantime, this appeal remained pending

with this Court, yet no Appellant’s brief was filed when due on May 4, 2023.

1
  This case was transferred from our sister court in San Antonio pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s docket
equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. Section 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of
Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
       On May 22, 2023, we abated the appeal and issued an order directing the trial court to

conduct a hearing to determine whether Appellant wished to continue the appeal and whether he

had been deprived of effective assistance of counsel. The trial court held the requested hearing on

May 31, 2023. Appellant, his counsel, and counsel for the State all announced their presence for

the record. Appellant’s counsel clarified that Appellant’s motion for new trial sought a new trial

for sentencing only, which was granted. The State confirmed its agreement with the defense on

the procedural posture of the case. Appellant’s counsel also clarified that prior counsel had filed a

notice of appeal solely out of an abundance of caution, but Appellant had no desire to appeal.

When asked whether he wanted to continue with his appeal, Appellant responded, “No, I do not,

Your Honor.”

       The trial court’s grant of a new trial restores the case to its position before the former trial.

TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b). And such grant of a new trial renders the appeal moot. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 21.9(b); see also Villegas v. State, No. 01-12-00605-CR, 2012 WL 6208301, at *1

(Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 13, 2012, no pet.) (mem.op., not designated for publication)

(per curiam) (dismissing appeal as moot where trial court granted new trial even though appellant

had not signed a voluntary dismissal motion); Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 643-44 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 1996, no pet.) (dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction when a new trial was

granted).

       Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f).

                                               GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

June 15, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

                                                  2