Devoris Antoine Newson v. the State of Texas

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
————————————

No. 08-25-00331-CR
————————————

Devoris Antoine Newson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On Appeal from the 346th District Court
El Paso County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20240D04878

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N

Appellant, Devoris Antoine Newson, filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus

on November 7, 2025. Subsequently, Newson filed a notice of appeal stating that he was appealing

“the trial court’s verbal denial of [his] 17.151 Pretrial writ . . ..” We dismiss this attempted appeal

for want of jurisdiction.
In a habeas proceeding, “a trial court’s oral pronouncement is not appealable until a written

order is signed.” Ex parte Perez, No. 14-13-01048-CR, 2014 WL 4416011, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 9, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication);

see State v. Sonavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 258–59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (holding that a notice

of appeal invokes the appellate court’s jurisdiction “over all parties to the trial court’s judgment or

order appealed from,” that an order must be in writing, and that with no written order from which

to appeal, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction); State v. Wachtendorf, 475 S.W.3d 895, 904

(Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (“It is true, of course, that the trial court’s oral pronouncements on the

record do not constitute appealable orders.”). A written order is a prerequisite to invoking this

Court’s jurisdiction in a habeas proceeding. See Perez, 2014 WL 4416011, at *1; State v. Nassour,

706 S.W.3d 627, 633 (Tex. App.—Austin 2024, pet. dism’d) (per curiam); Ex parte Wiley, 949

S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no writ). The record in this case does not, however,

contain a written order by the trial court ruling on Newson’s pretrial application for writ of habeas

corpus.

Moreover, a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus is rendered moot when the

offense for which the applicant was being held is dismissed and the applicant is released from

confinement on the charge. See Ex parte Davis, No. 12-20-00141-CR, 2020 WL 6164465, at *1–

2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 21, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ex parte

Huerta, 582 S.W.3d 407, 410–11 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2018, pet. ref’d). Here, the record shows

that the trial court, on the State’s motion and after Newson filed his habeas application, dismissed

the underlying case against Newson.

Finally, to the extent we could construe Newson’s notice of appeal as an attempt to appeal

from the underlying criminal case, “[a] criminal defendant is not permitted to appeal a trial court’s

2
order dismissing a charge against him.” Kozitzki v. State, No. 04-23-00511-CR, 2023 WL 3856707,

at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 7, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(per curiam) (citing Bohannon v. State, 352 S.W.3d 47, 48 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet.

ref’d); Petty v. State, 800 S.W.2d 582, 583–84 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1990, no pet.) (per curiam)).

Because no written order appears in the record and because the trial court dismissed the

underlying criminal case against Newson, we issued an order on March 6, 2026, requiring Newson

to show cause in writing by March 26, 2026, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. Newson has not filed a response showing that this Court has jurisdiction over this

appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending

motions as moot.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

April 24, 2026

Before Palafox and Soto, JJ., Benavides, J. (Senior Judge)
Benavides, J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment

(Do Not Publish)

3