Jorge Cuevas v. State

lee, elmer edward v. state

                                        NO. 12-07-00351-CR

NO. 12-07-00352-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

 

TYLER, TEXAS

 

 

JORGE CUEVAS,    §          APPEALS FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

 

V.        §          JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §          SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

 

 


MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            These appeals are being dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child (trial court cause number 007-2780-06) and tampering with government records (trial court cause number 007-0676-07).  Sentence was imposed on July 17, 2007.


            Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court unless a motion for new trial is timely filed.  When a timely motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court.  Id.  A motion for new trial must be filed not later than thirty days after the trial court imposes or suspends sentence in open court.  Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a).  Appellant filed a motion for new trial in each cause on August 17, 2007, which was 31 days after the trial court imposed sentence in open court.  Therefore, Appellant’s motions for new trial were untimely and did not extend the time for filing his notice of appeal.  Consequently, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before August 16, 2007.  However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal in either cause until September 11, 2007 and did not file a motion for extension of time to file either notice of appeal as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.

            On September 18, 2007, this court notified Appellant, pursuant to Rules 26.2 and 37.1, that the clerk’s record did not show the jurisdiction of this court, and it gave him until September 28, 2007 to correct the defect.  The deadline has now passed, and Appellant did not furnish information showing the jurisdiction of this court or otherwise respond to this court’s notice.       

            Because this court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as provided by Rule 26.3, the appeals must be dismissed.  See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered October 3, 2007.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(DO NOT PUBLISH)