Randy Lorine Carroll v. State

 

 


Opinion issued July 16, 2009







In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________


NO. 01-08-00268-CR

_____

____________


 RANDY LORINE CARROLL, Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11223-A




 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The trial court sentenced appellant, Randy Lorine Carroll, and signed a final judgment in this case on January 28, 2008. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial, and therefore the deadline for filing notice of appeal was February 27, 2008, 30 days after sentencing. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).

           Appellant filed a document that the trial court construed as a notice of appeal on March 4, 2008, 6 days after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. Appellant filed another document, construed by the Limestone County District Clerk’s Office as a notice of appeal, on March 14, 2008, 16 days after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction to hear the case. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 605-06 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

          Even if we were to construe appellant’s notice of appeal filed on March 4, 2008no as a motion for an out-of-time appeal, neither the trial court nor this Court has authority to grant an out-of-time appeal. The exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2008).

          Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). However, if an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).

          We dismiss as moot any pending motions.

          It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Alcala, and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).