Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
On October 23, 2003, the clerk of this court received a copy of a Notice of Appeal filed on behalf of appellant Twila Young. By letter dated November 5, 2003, the clerk advised counsel for appellant that a filing fee had not been received, see Tex. R. App. P. 5, nor had a docketing statement been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 32.1. The clerk's letter likewise advised that no further action would be taken on the appeal by this Court until a filing fee had been paid and that failure to pay the filing fee may result in dismissal of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.
The filing fee was not paid. On June 30, 2004 this matter was abated and remanded to the trial court for determination of indigency and desire to prosecute this appeal. On July 23, 2004 the trial court entered its Supplemental Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law stating that the appellant had failed to prosecute her appeal, failed to establish indigency and granted appellant counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant. By letter dated August 11, 2004, the clerk advised appellant that the filing fee had still not been paid, and that unless the filing fee was received on or before August 31, 2004, the appeal would be subject to dismissal.
The filing fee has not been paid. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.
Phil Johnson
Chief Justice
efUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267">
NO. 07-10-0066-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
MAY 27, 2010
______________________________
ANTHONY LOCKETT,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
_______________________________
FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2009-422947; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Dismissal
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant, Anthony Lockett, appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, a first degree felony. By letter dated May 7, 2010, we informed appellant that it appeared his notice of appeal was untimely and he had until May 17, 2010, to provide us with any information that would be necessary to our determination of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a motion for this court to accept jurisdiction because even though the notice of appeal and motion for new trial were not filed within thirty days after sentence was pronounced, they were filed timely after the written judgment was signed. This, according to appellant, vests the Court with jurisdiction to hear issues regarding orders contained in the written judgment but not orally pronounced at trial. Appellant further relies on the case of Bailey v. State, 160 S.W.3d 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) to support his argument. In Bailey, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a restitution order entered about a month after sentencing was pronounced was a continuation of the sentencing hearing because appellants punishment was not complete until the restitution was ordered. This is not the case here. Appellant admits that restitution was not ordered in this case nor has he pointed us to anywhere in the record to indicate punishment has not been completed. Nor does he suggest that anything is actually wrong with the judgment itself or that it encompasses punishment different from that orally pronounced.
Because appellant agrees that his motion for new trial and notice of appeal were not timely filed from the date sentence was pronounced, we find we lack jurisdiction over the matter.[1]
Accordingly, appellants appeal is dismissed.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
[1]The appropriate vehicle for seeking an out-of-time appeal from a final felony conviction is by writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2009-2010).