In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-02-00003-CV ______________________________
MELISSA RAINES, Appellant
V.
SONIA GOMEZ, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. CV01-06329
Before Morriss, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ. Opinion by Justice Ross
O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a default judgment for eviction, back rent, and property damages. Melissa Raines rented a house in Sulphur Springs beginning in May 1997. After expiration of the first year's lease, Raines did not renew her lease but continued to rent the home on a month-to-month basis. Soon thereafter, Raines stopped paying rent. On August 8, 2001, Sonia Gomez gave Raines notice to vacate the rental property. Gomez then sued for eviction, back rent, property damages, and court costs in justice court, and prevailed in that forum. Raines appealed to the county court at law and, after failing to appear at the final hearing, the court rendered judgment in Gomez' favor for $4,200.00 for back rent and property damages, and ordered Raines to vacate Gomez' property.
In her appeal to this Court, Raines contends the trial court improperly rendered a default judgment because Raines did not receive actual notice of the final trial setting, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render a final judgment, the evidence is factually insufficient to support the trial court's judgment, the trial court erred in denying Raines' motion for summary judgment, the trial court erred by not granting Raines' counterclaim, the trial court erred by not ordering mediation, the trial court erred by denying Raines' pretrial motions, and the trial court's judgment conflicts with its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In civil cases, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days from the date of judgment or within ninety days from the date of judgment if the appealing party filed a motion for new trial. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. A motion for new trial must be filed within thirty days from the date the trial court imposes its judgment. Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a). These timetables must be met to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. See Foster v. Williams, 74 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2002, pet. denied).
In this case, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Gomez December 20, 2001. Raines' motion for new trial was due Monday, January 21, 2001, since the thirtieth day fell on a Saturday. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a); Tex. R. Civ. P. 4, 329(b). Raines filed her motion for new trial January 23, 2002. Accordingly, her motion for new trial was untimely and cannot serve to enlarge the timetable for filing her notice of appeal.
Raines filed her notice of appeal March 25, 2002. This is well beyond the thirtieth day from the date of judgment. It is also outside the ninety-day filing period had her motion for new trial been timely; the last day for filing the notice of appeal in that situation was Wednesday, March 20, 2002.
Raines has failed to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. Her appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Donald R. Ross
Justice
Date Submitted: October 24, 2002
Date Decided: October 25, 2002
Do Not Publish
Exception Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-10-00136-CR
______________________________
DELDRICK DEVON THOMAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 420th Judicial District Court
Nacogdoches County, Texas
Trial Court No. F13365-2005
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Deldrick Devon Thomas appeals from the adjudication of his guilt, on his pleas of true to six of the eight allegations contained in the States motion to adjudicate[1] the offense of theft, enhanced to a state jail felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (Vernon Supp. 2010). Thomas was sentenced by the trial court to twenty-four months confinement in the State Jail Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice.[2] Thomas was represented by different appointed counsel at trial and on appeal.[3]
Thomas attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings in detail. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 360 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Thomas on November 4, 2010, informing Thomas of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Thomas has neither filed a pro se response, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerks record and the reporters record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 82627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In a frivolous appeal situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and if so, the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.[4]
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: January 26, 2011
Date Decided: January 27, 2011
Do Not Publish
[1]In addition, the trial court found one of the two remaining allegations to be true.
[2]Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See Tex. Govt Code Ann. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005).
[3]Thomas also appeals, in companion cause numbers 06-10-00134-CR and 06-10-00135-CR, also decided this date, from the revocation of his community supervision for the offense of promotion of child pornography and for the offense of theft, respectively. In each of those cases, Thomas community supervision was revoked. He was sentenced to ten years confinement on the child pornography conviction and twenty-four months confinement on the theft conviction. All sentences are to run concurrently.
[4]Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsels request to withdraw from further representation of Thomas in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Thomas wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Thomas must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Thomas must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.