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 (footnote: 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, (footnote: 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DO NOT PUBLISH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
FOOTNOTES
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).