Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-25-2020

Case Style:

Kurby Gerald Decker v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 02-20-00088-CR

Judge: Per Curiam

Court: Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

Plaintiff's Attorney: Casey Polhemus

Defendant's Attorney:


Texas Lawyer Directory


OR


Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.



Description: Henrietta, TX , Criminal Attorney, Miscellaneous/Other Criminal including Misdemeanor or Felony.












In 1994, Decker was convicted of solicitation of capital murder and sentenced
to thirty years’ confinement in cause number 93-11-0039C-CR. It appears that
Decker then filed several unsuccessful postconviction writs and motions. In July
2019 in the same cause number, Decker filed a motion for default judgment, arguing
that the three trial judges who had presided over his trial and his postconviction
proceedings had committed judicial activism and fraud, rendering his conviction void.
Decker asked for a new sentencing hearing. On January 13, the trial court denied
Decker’s motion, noting that “[t]his court has lost all plenary power long ago.”
Decker now appeals this denial.
In criminal cases, we have jurisdiction over final judgments of conviction but
do not have jurisdiction over collateral attacks of a final conviction. See Duvall v. State,
No. 02-19-00446-CR, 2020 WL 370580, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 23, 2020,
no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(c). Decker’s motion for default judgment attempted
to collaterally attack his 1994 conviction. See, e.g., In re Kennedy, No. 12-17-00119-CR,
2017 WL 1534041, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Apr. 28, 2017, orig. proceeding) (per
curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
3
We notified Decker that we questioned our jurisdiction on this basis and
warned that we could dismiss his appeal if he failed to show grounds to continue the
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Although Decker filed three responses, he has not
shown grounds by which we may exercise jurisdiction over his impermissible
collateral attack on his 1994 conviction

Outcome: Accordingly, we dismiss Decker’s appeal.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: