|
|
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-06-262-CR
STEPHEN RAY SMITH APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
------------
Appellant Stephen Ray Smith attempts to appeal his conviction for theft of over $100,000 and under $200,000. The jury found Appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at ninety-nine years= confinement and a fine of $10,000. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to rule 26.2 of the rules of appellate procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed, or within ninety days after the day sentence is imposed if the defendant files a timely motion for new trial. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). Appellant=s sentence was imposed on May 24, 2006. No timely motion for new trial was filed,[2] so Appellant=s notice of appeal was due June 23, 2006, but was filed July 21, 2006.
On July 31, 2006, we notified Appellant of the apparent untimeliness of the notice of appeal and stated we would dismiss the appeal unless we received a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Appellant did not file a response.
Because Appellant=s notice of appeal was untimely, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
PANEL D: HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 31, 2006
[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
[2]On July 21, 2006, Appellant filed an untimely motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a) (providing that a motion for new trial must be filed no later than thirty days after the date the trial court imposes sentence in open court).