Roy David Perry v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed April 30, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________

No. 11-25-00057-CR
___________

ROY DAVID PERRY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 350th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 15936-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Appellant, Roy David Perry, of the first-degree felony
offense of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and the third-
degree felony offense of tampering with physical evidence. See TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d) (West Supp. 2025); TEX. PENAL CODE Ann.
§ 37.09(a), (c) (West Supp. 2025). After finding the State’s enhancement allegations
to be “true,” the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for
forty years and twenty-five years, respectively, in the Institutional Division of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice and ordered that the sentences be served
concurrently.
Appellant has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed
by Appellant and Appellant’s appellate counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).
We grant Appellant’s motion and dismiss this appeal.1

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE

April 30, 2026
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1
Appellant’s motion to dismiss was filed after the parties’ briefs were filed in this court. In their
briefs, Appellant argued, and the State agreed, that the trial court’s judgment for the tampering conviction
should be modified to correct the designation of the offense and statute of conviction. Although we have
the authority to modify and reform a trial court’s judgment when we have the necessary information to do
so, see Rhodes v. State, 712 S.W.3d 226, 235 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2025, no pet.), we may only issue
judgments as authorized by Rule 43.2. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b), (f) (stating, in relevant part, that a court
of appeals may modify and affirm a trial court’s judgment or dismiss an appeal). Thus, this deficiency may
be more appropriately addressed to the trial court in a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.
2