In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-15-00029-CR
JAMES DAVID HAYNES, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 5th District Court
Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 14F0359-005
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Carter,* JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
________________________________
*Jack Carter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a jury trial, James David Haynes, Jr., was convicted of three counts of aggravated
sexual assault of a child and sentenced to life in prison. Haynes’ sentence was imposed November 21,
2014, and he filed a motion for new trial December 23, 2014, and a notice of appeal February 11, 2015.
The issue before us is whether Haynes properly invoked this Court’s jurisdiction by timely perfecting
his appeal. Because we find that Haynes’ notice of appeal was not timely filed, we also conclude that
we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
A timely filed notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. See Olivo v.
State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Rule 26.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure prescribes the time period in which a notice of appeal must be filed to perfect an appeal in
a criminal case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2. A criminal defendant’s notice of appeal is timely if filed
within thirty days after the date sentence is imposed or suspended or within ninety days after sentencing
if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a), (b); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at
522.
In this case, Haynes’ motion for new trial was filed thirty-two days after the date sentence was
imposed, making it untimely. Consequently, Haynes did not trigger the ninety-day filing period that
accompanies a timely filed motion for new trial, and his notice of appeal was due within thirty days of
the date sentence was imposed. Since Haynes’ notice of appeal was not filed within this thirty-day
window, it was untimely, and we are without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
By letter dated March 20, 2015, we notified Haynes of this potential defect in our jurisdiction
and afforded him an opportunity to respond. Haynes filed a response in which he conceded that our
jurisdiction is wanting.
2
In light of the foregoing, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: April 6, 2015
Date Decided: April 7, 2015
Do Not Publish
3